Delta Vale Properties v Mills and others
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1990) 1 WLR 445-458(14)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 8 December 1989. The vendor (H) of a property served on the purchasers (D) a notice requiring them to complete within 15 days. This notice also had a paragraph on the consequences of failing to complete 28 days after this notice had been served. After two more ultimatums M rescinded the contract . D claimed that the first notice had been ambiguous through inclusion of the paragraph concerning 28 days. The notice was, however, held to be valid.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42589 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 37727-1001 |
CA 8 December 1989. The vendor (H) of a property served on the purchasers (D) a notice requiring them to complete within 15 days. This notice also had a paragraph on the consequences of failing to complete 28 days after this notice had been served. After two more ultimatums M rescinded the contract . D claimed that the first notice had been ambiguous through inclusion of the paragraph concerning 28 days. The notice was, however, held to be valid.