CA 8 December 1989 Appeal from High Court decision on the construction of an option under a clause in a lease to purchase reversion . In 1988 the tenant`s (A) solicitors gave notice of A`s desire to exercise the option, but no deposit was paid within the three months stipulated in the option. A`s solicitors gave further such notice and enclosed a cheque for the required deposit. High Court decided that A was entitled to serve more than one notice to exercise the option. The landlord (T) contended that upon the failure of A to pay the deposit within the time-limit , the option had been exercised, the condition regarding payment of the deposit had not been fulfilled and no second notice could be served. CA held, dismissing appeal, that the option could only be validly exercised with the giving of written notice and payment of a deposit within the time-limit stipulated. Until these conditions were fulfilled, there was no contract. There was nothing to prevent a second notice. T remained