Image from Google Jackets

Goff v Gauthier

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1991) 62 P&CR 388-401(7)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: ChD 27 March 1991. The defendants (D) agreed to purchase freehold property for £185,000. Contracts were exchanged on 28 October 1988 but D failed to complete the sale as agreed on 25 November 1988, as they had not been able to raise adequate finance. They had been aware of financial problems when they signed the contract but had been told by the plaintiff`s solicitor that if they did not sign on that date the sale was off as there was another purchaser ready to sign at a higher price. It turned out that there was no definite purchaser, merely one who was interested. Had D known this they would not have signed without the finance. The plaintiff sought to forfeit the deposit paid by D and recover damages, being the difference between contract price and the price at which it was eventually sold, £130,000 plus interest. D contended that the exchange of contracts had been induced as a result of material misrepresentations. They sought return of their deposit with interest. ChD held in fav
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45354 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 52503-1001

ChD 27 March 1991. The defendants (D) agreed to purchase freehold property for £185,000. Contracts were exchanged on 28 October 1988 but D failed to complete the sale as agreed on 25 November 1988, as they had not been able to raise adequate finance. They had been aware of financial problems when they signed the contract but had been told by the plaintiff`s solicitor that if they did not sign on that date the sale was off as there was another purchaser ready to sign at a higher price. It turned out that there was no definite purchaser, merely one who was interested. Had D known this they would not have signed without the finance. The plaintiff sought to forfeit the deposit paid by D and recover damages, being the difference between contract price and the price at which it was eventually sold, £130,000 plus interest. D contended that the exchange of contracts had been induced as a result of material misrepresentations. They sought return of their deposit with interest. ChD held in fav