Yewbelle Ltd V London Green Developments Limited and Knightsbridge Green Limited [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 3166 (Ch), Considers the extent to which "reasonable endeavours" are required in order to satisfy a contract. A contract existed for Y to sell property in Colliers Wood, London to L. The land comprises a tower block and multi-storey car park. L intended to develop the property, including the extension of the tower block to include a library. The contract contained a clause requiring Y to make reasonable endeavour to obtain planning permission for this under the Town and Country Planning Act s106. However problems arose between Y and the local authority. Y contended that the contract was now complete, as a reasonable time had passed within which Y had made reasonable attempts to obtain permission. L contested this. "Held": Where no explicit timeframe was stated in the contract, one could only be implied if it was to give efficacy to the business agreement, or so obvious that it needed no statement. The term suggested by Y could not be assumed and would have unintended effects upon the contract. Y had been incorrect in stating it had used all reasonable endeavours. L was entitled to further performance of the contract, which had not come to an end. Case upheld.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 138455-1001 |
[2006] EWHC 3166 (Ch), Considers the extent to which "reasonable endeavours" are required in order to satisfy a contract. A contract existed for Y to sell property in Colliers Wood, London to L. The land comprises a tower block and multi-storey car park. L intended to develop the property, including the extension of the tower block to include a library. The contract contained a clause requiring Y to make reasonable endeavour to obtain planning permission for this under the Town and Country Planning Act s106. However problems arose between Y and the local authority. Y contended that the contract was now complete, as a reasonable time had passed within which Y had made reasonable attempts to obtain permission. L contested this. "Held": Where no explicit timeframe was stated in the contract, one could only be implied if it was to give efficacy to the business agreement, or so obvious that it needed no statement. The term suggested by Y could not be assumed and would have unintended effects upon the contract. Y had been incorrect in stating it had used all reasonable endeavours. L was entitled to further performance of the contract, which had not come to an end. Case upheld.