Case news in Rickman v Earl of Cadogan
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 70(28) 15 July 2005, 83(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Considers "Rickman and another v Earl of Cardigan and another" (ChD, unreported) which concerns the correct interpretation of a sales contract in respect of the right to withhold consent to building works. Claimant (R) contended that under the sales contract for a cottage on the Savernake Estate near Marlborough the defendant trustees of the estate (C) could not unreasonably withhold consent to building work to the cottage. The contract was silent about the right to withhold consent arbitrarily or only on reasonable grounds but C asserted that they could refuse consent on whatever grounds they wanted and R had no right to challenge the refusal. The judge declared in favour of the claimants. The parties must have intended a limit to the circumstances where the defendants could withhold consent and this limit gave effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L130406 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 130406-1001 |
Considers "Rickman and another v Earl of Cardigan and another" (ChD, unreported) which concerns the correct interpretation of a sales contract in respect of the right to withhold consent to building works. Claimant (R) contended that under the sales contract for a cottage on the Savernake Estate near Marlborough the defendant trustees of the estate (C) could not unreasonably withhold consent to building work to the cottage. The contract was silent about the right to withhold consent arbitrarily or only on reasonable grounds but C asserted that they could refuse consent on whatever grounds they wanted and R had no right to challenge the refusal. The judge declared in favour of the claimants. The parties must have intended a limit to the circumstances where the defendants could withhold consent and this limit gave effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties.