Carne and another v Debono
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1988) 1 WLR 1107-1113(7)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 June 1988. 1 February 1985: the purchaser agreed to buy a house subject to planning permission conditions and the release of restrictive covenants . 16 December 1985: contractual date for completion fixed. November 1986: terms agreed for the release of the covenants. 13 January 1987: the vendors gave notice requiring completion of the contract and making time of the essence. That notice was treated by the parties`solicitors as expiring on 5 February: on that day at 10.10 the vendors`solicitors sent a letter by fax to the purchaser`s solicitors which contained a completion statement. Completion was due by midday. The letter was inconsistent with the amount of interest being demanded, which was itself in dispute. Completion did not take place. The vendors`solicitors wrote on the following day informing the purchaser`s solicitors that the contract was terminated and that the vendors would retain the deposit. The vendors began proceedings in which they claimed a declaration that th| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39892 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 19857-1001 |
CA 27 June 1988. 1 February 1985: the purchaser agreed to buy a house subject to planning permission conditions and the release of restrictive covenants . 16 December 1985: contractual date for completion fixed. November 1986: terms agreed for the release of the covenants. 13 January 1987: the vendors gave notice requiring completion of the contract and making time of the essence. That notice was treated by the parties`solicitors as expiring on 5 February: on that day at 10.10 the vendors`solicitors sent a letter by fax to the purchaser`s solicitors which contained a completion statement. Completion was due by midday. The letter was inconsistent with the amount of interest being demanded, which was itself in dispute. Completion did not take place. The vendors`solicitors wrote on the following day informing the purchaser`s solicitors that the contract was terminated and that the vendors would retain the deposit. The vendors began proceedings in which they claimed a declaration that th