Ganton House Investments Ltd v Corbin
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8843) 29 October 1988, 76-84(5)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ChD 21 December 1987 By these proceedings Ganton House (G) sought various declarations and an order for specific performance in regard to the exercise of an option to purchase the leasehold interest of Corbin (C) in commercial premises, consisting of a ground floor and a yard. Issue was whether conditions applicable to the contract resulting from the exercise of the option were satisfied. The contract contained the following provision: `The offer is subject only to satisfactory local searches , landlord`s consents including change of use and consent to alterations. National Conditions of Sale will apply to any purchase`. C wishing to extricate himself from the contract because he had received a better offer, raised a number of difficulties. When proceedings were brought by G, C contended that the option or resulting contract was void or, if valid, was subject to conditions which were not fulfilled and therefore failed. ChD held that the option was validly created and validly exercise| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40041 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 20932-1001 |
ChD 21 December 1987 By these proceedings Ganton House (G) sought various declarations and an order for specific performance in regard to the exercise of an option to purchase the leasehold interest of Corbin (C) in commercial premises, consisting of a ground floor and a yard. Issue was whether conditions applicable to the contract resulting from the exercise of the option were satisfied. The contract contained the following provision: `The offer is subject only to satisfactory local searches , landlord`s consents including change of use and consent to alterations. National Conditions of Sale will apply to any purchase`. C wishing to extricate himself from the contract because he had received a better offer, raised a number of difficulties. When proceedings were brought by G, C contended that the option or resulting contract was void or, if valid, was subject to conditions which were not fulfilled and therefore failed. ChD held that the option was validly created and validly exercise