One contract, or two?
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0141) 13 October 2001, 181(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Examines the case "Grossman v Hooper", where the parties had shared the repayment of a mortgage for a house. On the break-up of the relationship, a contract was agreed, giving the claimant (G) ownership but the defendant (H) alleged that, as part of the agreement, G would repay an outstanding loan. However, it was held that a written contract for a sale of land must contain all terms agreed by the parties; a court will not readily interpret a 'missing' term as part of a separate contract.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3739-26 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115166-1001 |
Examines the case "Grossman v Hooper", where the parties had shared the repayment of a mortgage for a house. On the break-up of the relationship, a contract was agreed, giving the claimant (G) ownership but the defendant (H) alleged that, as part of the agreement, G would repay an outstanding loan. However, it was held that a written contract for a sale of land must contain all terms agreed by the parties; a court will not readily interpret a 'missing' term as part of a separate contract.