Image from Google Jackets

29 Equities Ltd v Bank Leumi (UK) Ltd

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1986) 1 WLR 1490-1497(8)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: CA 10 October 1986. Appeal by purchasers(P) of a leasehold flat in London held for a term of 99 years from 29 September 1970. Contract for sale was entered into on 10 July 1985. Completion date was 29 November 1985 and the contract incorporated the National Conditions of Sale (NSC) (20th ed). Condition 11(5) applied with the effect that if the contract was rescinded by the vendor the deal would be called off. The vendor`s solicitors informed P that the landlord`s requirements before giving a license for assignment included two guarantors who should be British based. In the absence of guarantors being provided the vendors solicitors threatened to rescind the contract. On 2 December the vendors` solicitors purported to exercise the power under condition 11(5) to rescind the contract because landlord`s consent had not been obtained. Shortly afterwards two guarantors and references were accepted by the landlord`s agents from P`s solicitors. P registered a caution against the title and is
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37249 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 3230-1001

CA 10 October 1986. Appeal by purchasers(P) of a leasehold flat in London held for a term of 99 years from 29 September 1970. Contract for sale was entered into on 10 July 1985. Completion date was 29 November 1985 and the contract incorporated the National Conditions of Sale (NSC) (20th ed). Condition 11(5) applied with the effect that if the contract was rescinded by the vendor the deal would be called off. The vendor`s solicitors informed P that the landlord`s requirements before giving a license for assignment included two guarantors who should be British based. In the absence of guarantors being provided the vendors solicitors threatened to rescind the contract. On 2 December the vendors` solicitors purported to exercise the power under condition 11(5) to rescind the contract because landlord`s consent had not been obtained. Shortly afterwards two guarantors and references were accepted by the landlord`s agents from P`s solicitors. P registered a caution against the title and is