Churchman and another v Lampon and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 09 EG 79-80(2)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: ChD 23 June 1989. By a writ issued 10 May 1989 the plaintiff (C) claimed that an agreement was made in 1963 by which rights were granted over certain land s by the mother of C to L contained an obligation in relation to land not at that time sold to L. This was a pre-emption not an option obliging Mrs C to offer that land to L first if she came to sell it. The land became available in 1988 L wrote to C claiming it but that letter was not seen as an unequivocal acceptance of an offer and accordingly the right to pre-emption lapsed. L claimed that the words of the pre-emption clause were not correctly used in the letter from C. However this letter was held to be correct. L`s letter of acceptance was unacceptable because it only came from Mr L not Mr and Mrs L as the offer had been addressed and it contained no positive statement of acceptance only a claim that he "retained the interest in the land".| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42435 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 36784-1001 |
ChD 23 June 1989. By a writ issued 10 May 1989 the plaintiff (C) claimed that an agreement was made in 1963 by which rights were granted over certain land s by the mother of C to L contained an obligation in relation to land not at that time sold to L. This was a pre-emption not an option obliging Mrs C to offer that land to L first if she came to sell it. The land became available in 1988 L wrote to C claiming it but that letter was not seen as an unequivocal acceptance of an offer and accordingly the right to pre-emption lapsed. L claimed that the words of the pre-emption clause were not correctly used in the letter from C. However this letter was held to be correct. L`s letter of acceptance was unacceptable because it only came from Mr L not Mr and Mrs L as the offer had been addressed and it contained no positive statement of acceptance only a claim that he "retained the interest in the land".