000			01474cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS40544
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u24641
041			_aeng
245			_aBechel and Another v Kitsford Holdings Ltd
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 10 EG 105-106(2)
520			_aChD 28 July 1988 Motion by Bechel and Another (B) for an order vacating a caution registered at the Land Registry against a property in East London which B had contract ed at auction to sell to Kitsford Holdings Ltd (K). After a series of delays in completion, notice was eventually served by B which K failed to comply with. K then complained of a substantial misdescription as to the size of the property. Finally, B stated that they were rescinding the contract and forfeiting the deposit. K submitted that the completion notice was invalid due to the misdescription and registered a caution to protect its interest under the contract. ChD held that the completion notice was valid and effective. The description of the area in the particulars did not affect the title and was not a feature of the conveyance. If there were a question of misdescription of area to be determined, this might lead to an abatement of the purchase price, but B were ready and willing to fulfil their contract. There
650			_aSALE OF LAND
690			_aPROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c16530 _d16530