Does a failure to complete justify forfeiture of a deposit? an analysis of recent case law [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: London PLA 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Discusses the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch), (see L143243). The case concerned a company that had paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but had not been ready, able or willing to complete. As a result, the company lost their deposit. Summarises the background to the case and comments on the position prior to the Midill case. Comments on the case and considers whether the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 can be avoided.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 144879-1001 |
Discusses the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch), (see L143243). The case concerned a company that had paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but had not been ready, able or willing to complete. As a result, the company lost their deposit. Summarises the background to the case and comments on the position prior to the Midill case. Comments on the case and considers whether the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 can be avoided.