Buyers lose out on deposit claims
Language: English Series: The In-House Lawyer ; (160) May 2008, 83-85(3)Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- PROPERTY ACT 1925 S40
- TENNERO LTD V MAJORARCH LTD
- UNIVERSAL CORPORATION V FIVE WAYS PROPERTIES LTD
- LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989 S2
- OMAR V EL-WAKIL
- PROFORCE RECRUIT LTD V THE RUGBY GROUP LTD
- ARIBISALA V ST JAMES HOMES (GROSVENOR DOCK) LTD
- LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S49(2)
- United Kingdom --
- PROPERTY
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L144929 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 144929-1001 |
Article looks at recent judicial findings in cases where deposits were witheld as a result of failure to complete on property transactions. In discussing the historical background, the author states that the level of discretion that can be applied to the legislation (Law of Property Act 1925 etc.) has been reduced over time and that defaulting buyers are now more likely than not lose their deposit.