[2007] EWHC 164 (Ch), 7 February 2007. The claimant (Rennie) sought a declaration that an option agreement between him and the defendant developer had ceased and that charges registered against his land to protect the option were to be vacated. The written agreement had provided the defendent with an option to purchase land owned by Rennie within 10 years of the date of the agreement. It had also provided that "at any time during the last year of the option period...the intending purchaser may by notice in writing served upon the intending vendor require such period to be extended by 5 years and upon service of such notice and payment...of £20,000, this agreement shall be construed as if the option period was 15 years". A few days before the 10-year option period was due to expire, the defendent had written to Rennie advising that it would shortly be in funds to invoke the five-year extension and requesting bank details. Rennie did not reply. On what was thought to be the final day of the 10-year period, the defendent obtained account details of Rennie's solicitors and transferred the money, receipt of which was acknowledged. It materialised that the option period had in fact expired one day earlier than the date of transfer of the money and Rennie sought to return the payment in reliance on the fact that the option had not been validly renewed. Rennie's argument was based on the idea that the written notice provided was not specific enough and that the payment requirement had not been met as it was a day late. "Held": the letter sent by the defendent was deemed to be a satisfactory statement of intention which any reasonable recipient should have accepted. The lateness of payment was not valid as there was no deadline element mentioned in the original option agreement. Judgement was for the defendent.