`Subject to contract` ambiguous
Language: English Series: Chartered Surveyor Weekly ; 40(10) 3 September 1992, 64(1)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: Preliminary attention in "Fraser Williams (Southern) Ltd v Prudential Holborn Ltd" HC 22 July 1992, was taken up with a decision as to whether the phrase `subject to contract` in correspondence required a formal contract or that a letter, arguably a letter of intent, could be taken as binding.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | WB2834-23 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 463-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Preliminary attention in "Fraser Williams (Southern) Ltd v Prudential Holborn Ltd" HC 22 July 1992, was taken up with a decision as to whether the phrase `subject to contract` in correspondence required a formal contract or that a letter, arguably a letter of intent, could be taken as binding.