Chinnock v Hocaoglu and anor (Record no. 80531)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 01900cab a22002055a 4500 |
| 001 - CONTROL NUMBER | |
| control field | L144646 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 080804e20080726xxk f v 000 0 eng d |
| 035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER | |
| System control number | (Sirsi) u144646 |
| 041 0# - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | eng |
| 245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Chinnock v Hocaoglu and anor |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. | |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. | 2008 |
| 490 ## - SERIES STATEMENT | |
| Series statement | Estates Gazette |
| Volume/sequential designation | (0829) 26 July 2008, 92-96 (5) |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc. | [2007] EWHC 2933 (Ch), 9 November 2007. Issues arose around completion and notices to complete; whether completion date should have been rectified due to common mistake and whether failure of purchaser to pay monies due by 1pm on last day permissable under notices entitled the vendors to rescind. Claimant (C) agreed to buy a property from defendants (H). The current tenant had a right under Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to purchase the property and the date of completion was conditionally set as being ten days after the tenants opted not to exercise their claim (if this was the case). Date was incorrectly recorded as being 24 January 2007, when it should have been 1 February 2007. C and H disputed over the date, with H saying that the eventual payment had been made late and that their legal fees should also have been paid as a consequence. Claimant claimed to have the date of completion rectified and have it asserted that his payment had resulted in a legally binding contract. Held: claim was allowed in part. Claimant had right to rectification as the mistake over the date of completion had been acknowledged by both parties. The nature of his last-minute payment, however, meant that the clause requiring him to pay the defendants' legal fees came into affect and therefore they had a right to rescind the contract. |
| 590 ## - LOCAL NOTE (RLIN) | |
| Local note | KA |
| 610 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--CORPORATE NAME | |
| Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element | PROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL-CONVEYANCING |
| 650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
| Topical term or geographic name entry element | CHINNOCK V HOCAOGLU AND ANOR |
| 651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME | |
| Geographic name | England and Wales |
| Chronological subdivision | 1543- |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Marshall, Hazel |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| Suppress in OPAC | 0 |
| 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 | London | London | Journals | 04/08/2008 | L144646 | 144646-1001 | 06/08/2019 | 1 | 06/08/2019 | Law report |