Handy deposit
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0140) 6 October 2001, 160-161(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Looks at the legal position regarding the return of deposits to buyers who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to complete a purchase. Considers case law that has tested whether Law of Property Act 1925 s49(2) can be excluded. Concludes that contractual exclusion of s49(2) does not work. Through analysis of other case law suggests that the courts will do what is fair in all the circumstances. Generally the party who is not in default will be awarded the deposit. Also looks at penalties. Case law suggests the rule about penalties does not apply to deposits unless they are unreasonably high. Furthermore, if the rule about penalties does apply the whole of the deposit will be forfeited. Recommends that sellers do not ask for a deposit of more than 10%.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64597 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115029-1001 |
Looks at the legal position regarding the return of deposits to buyers who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to complete a purchase. Considers case law that has tested whether Law of Property Act 1925 s49(2) can be excluded. Concludes that contractual exclusion of s49(2) does not work. Through analysis of other case law suggests that the courts will do what is fair in all the circumstances. Generally the party who is not in default will be awarded the deposit. Also looks at penalties. Case law suggests the rule about penalties does not apply to deposits unless they are unreasonably high. Furthermore, if the rule about penalties does apply the whole of the deposit will be forfeited. Recommends that sellers do not ask for a deposit of more than 10%.