Image from Google Jackets

Briargate Developments Ltd v Newprop Co Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 33 EG 42-48(4)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: ChD 6 March 1989. A claim for specific performance of an option agreement for purchase of a leasehold interest in a shopping centre . N the defendant company offered B, the plaintiff company, an option to purchase their interest in the centre for £6m. £300,000 option money would be deducted from the £6m if a contact for sale was to arise. B were unable to raise the full amount and entered into an agreement with a third company, Taylor Woodrow Properties Ltd (TW), who agreed to purchase the centre for £7m if B exercised the option. When this happened, N refused to assign directly to the third company, and contended that the agreement between B and TW was a breach of the assignment clause in the option agreement, and that the financial arrangements breached the profit-sharing provisions. N also contended they were under no duty to transfer the leasehold interest directly to TW. The judge accepted this point, but rejected N`s two main submissions. B`s claim for specific performance allo
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS41474 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 30425-1001

ChD 6 March 1989. A claim for specific performance of an option agreement for purchase of a leasehold interest in a shopping centre . N the defendant company offered B, the plaintiff company, an option to purchase their interest in the centre for £6m. £300,000 option money would be deducted from the £6m if a contact for sale was to arise. B were unable to raise the full amount and entered into an agreement with a third company, Taylor Woodrow Properties Ltd (TW), who agreed to purchase the centre for £7m if B exercised the option. When this happened, N refused to assign directly to the third company, and contended that the agreement between B and TW was a breach of the assignment clause in the option agreement, and that the financial arrangements breached the profit-sharing provisions. N also contended they were under no duty to transfer the leasehold interest directly to TW. The judge accepted this point, but rejected N`s two main submissions. B`s claim for specific performance allo