Ford Sellar Morris Properties plc v EW Hutchinson Ltd
Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; 1990 SLT 500-502(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: Outer House 13 October 1989. The subtenants (E) offered to sublease premises from (F) conditional on their obtaining the head landlord `s consent prior to entry ie before 28 February 1989, failing which either party would be entitled to resile from the contract without penalty. The landlord`s consent did not arrive until 8 March and the subtenants resiled from the contract. F appealed. At procedure roll, E argued that time had been made of the essence and that they were therefore entitled to resile. F argued that since the condition was resolutive rather than suspensive, and the consent had been obtained before E resiled from the contract, the time limit for obtaining the consent was immaterial. It was held that time was of the essence and it must therefore be adhered to; as it had not been, E were entitled to resile.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42968 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 39750-1001 |
Outer House 13 October 1989. The subtenants (E) offered to sublease premises from (F) conditional on their obtaining the head landlord `s consent prior to entry ie before 28 February 1989, failing which either party would be entitled to resile from the contract without penalty. The landlord`s consent did not arrive until 8 March and the subtenants resiled from the contract. F appealed. At procedure roll, E argued that time had been made of the essence and that they were therefore entitled to resile. F argued that since the condition was resolutive rather than suspensive, and the consent had been obtained before E resiled from the contract, the time limit for obtaining the consent was immaterial. It was held that time was of the essence and it must therefore be adhered to; as it had not been, E were entitled to resile.