000			01602cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS45990
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u56217
041			_aeng
245			_aZemhunt (Holdings) Ltd v Control Securities plc
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aScots Law Times _v1992 SLT 151-156(6)
520			_aSecond Division 30 October 1991. A company made a successful bid at auction for a property subject to general conditions including a requirement that the purchasers pay a 10% deposit to the auctioneer to be held by him as agents to the seller. It also provided that the balance be paid in full on a subsequent date. A delay in payment of over ten days entitled the sellers to resile. The purchaser did fail to pay and the sellers resiled. The purchaser raised an action seeking repayment of the deposit. Before the Lord Ordinary the sellers argued that on proper construction of the contract the deposit fell to be forfeited and that it would be wrong to recover the deposit when termination of the contract was due to their own material breach. The LO held that `deposit` fell to be construed as meaning advance part payment and did not necessarily imply forfeiture, but that restitution should not be allowed to those who were responsible for terminating the contract. The purchasers appealed on
650			_aBREACH OF CONTRACT
650			_aDEFINITION
650			_aMATERIAL BREACH
650			_aSCOTLAND
650			_aVENDOR AND PURCHASER
690			_aPROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c34286 _d34286