Rennie v. Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd (Record no. 78406)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02552cab a2200205 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field L136695
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 070215n2007 000 0 eng u
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u136695
041 0# - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Rennie v. Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd
Medium [electronic resource]
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 2007
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. [2007] EWHC 164 (Ch), 7 February 2007. The claimant (Rennie) sought a declaration that an option agreement between him and the defendant developer had ceased and that charges registered against his land to protect the option were to be vacated. The written agreement had provided the defendent with an option to purchase land owned by Rennie within 10 years of the date of the agreement. It had also provided that "at any time during the last year of the option period...the intending purchaser may by notice in writing served upon the intending vendor require such period to be extended by 5 years and upon service of such notice and payment...of £20,000, this agreement shall be construed as if the option period was 15 years". A few days before the 10-year option period was due to expire, the defendent had written to Rennie advising that it would shortly be in funds to invoke the five-year extension and requesting bank details. Rennie did not reply. On what was thought to be the final day of the 10-year period, the defendent obtained account details of Rennie's solicitors and transferred the money, receipt of which was acknowledged. It materialised that the option period had in fact expired one day earlier than the date of transfer of the money and Rennie sought to return the payment in reliance on the fact that the option had not been validly renewed. Rennie's argument was based on the idea that the written notice provided was not specific enough and that the payment requirement had not been met as it was a day late. "Held": the letter sent by the defendent was deemed to be a satisfactory statement of intention which any reasonable recipient should have accepted. The lateness of payment was not valid as there was no deadline element mentioned in the original option agreement. Judgement was for the defendent.
590 ## - LOCAL NOTE (RLIN)
Local note KA
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element RENNIE V WESTBURY HOMES (HOLDINGS) LTD
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element MANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name England
Chronological subdivision 886-
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
856 40 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/164.html">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/164.html</a>
Public note View the decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     Virtual Virtual Online 15/02/2007   ONLINE PUBLICATION 136695-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Law report