Image from Google Jackets

Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 02 EG 167-170(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: ChD 27 November 1990 Action for damages for breach of contract to buy land . Spiro (S) granted an option to the first defendant (G) to buy property in Finchley. Option was exercisable by notice in writing to S by 5 pm on the same day. G gave a notice exercising the option within the stipulated time, but failed to complete the purchase. The contract granting the option was signed by both parties, but the letter which exercised the option was signed only by the purchaser. G argued that an option was an irrevocable offer which did not become a contract for the sale of land until it had been accepted by the notice which exercised the option and that the contract could only have been made by the letter exercising the option. Since this letter was not signed by the vendor, the contract was by statute void for informality. The issue raised was whether the contract upon which the vendor relied, complied with Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 . ChD held that the plain pur
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44017 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 44803-1001

ChD 27 November 1990 Action for damages for breach of contract to buy land . Spiro (S) granted an option to the first defendant (G) to buy property in Finchley. Option was exercisable by notice in writing to S by 5 pm on the same day. G gave a notice exercising the option within the stipulated time, but failed to complete the purchase. The contract granting the option was signed by both parties, but the letter which exercised the option was signed only by the purchaser. G argued that an option was an irrevocable offer which did not become a contract for the sale of land until it had been accepted by the notice which exercised the option and that the contract could only have been made by the letter exercising the option. Since this letter was not signed by the vendor, the contract was by statute void for informality. The issue raised was whether the contract upon which the vendor relied, complied with Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 . ChD held that the plain pur