| 000 | 01024cab a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS42589 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u37727 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aDelta Vale Properties v Mills and others | ||
| 260 | _c1990 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aWeekly Law Reports _v(1990) 1 WLR 445-458(14) |
||
| 520 | _aCA 8 December 1989. The vendor (H) of a property served on the purchasers (D) a notice requiring them to complete within 15 days. This notice also had a paragraph on the consequences of failing to complete 28 days after this notice had been served. After two more ultimatums M rescinded the contract . D claimed that the first notice had been ambiguous through inclusion of the paragraph concerning 28 days. The notice was, however, held to be valid. | ||
| 650 | _aCOMPLETION | ||
| 650 | _aCONVEYANCING | ||
| 650 | _aHOUSE PURCHASE | ||
| 650 | _aVENDOR AND PURCHASER | ||
| 690 | _aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c24304 _d24304 |
||