000			01519cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS64597
008			011008n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u115029
100			_aWoodhouse, A.
245			_aHandy deposit
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0140) 6 October 2001, 160-161(2)
520			_aLooks at the legal position regarding the return of deposits to buyers who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to complete a purchase. Considers case law that has tested whether Law of Property Act 1925 s49(2) can be excluded. Concludes that contractual exclusion of s49(2) does not work. Through analysis of other case law suggests that the courts will do what is fair in all the circumstances. Generally the party who is not in default will be awarded the deposit. Also looks at penalties. Case law suggests the rule about penalties does not apply to deposits unless they are unreasonably high. Furthermore, if the rule about penalties does apply the whole of the deposit will be forfeited. Recommends that sellers do not ask for a deposit of more than 10%.
590			_aABS
650			_aDEPOSITS
650			_aREPAYMENT
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S49(2)
650			_aUNIVERSAL CORPORATION V FIVE WAYS PROPERTIES LTD
650			_aCOUNTRY & METROPOLITAN HOMES SURREY LTD V TOPCLAIM LTD
650			_aOMAR V EL-WAKIL
650			_aWORKERS TRUST AND MERCHANT BANK LTD V DOJAP INVESTMENTS LTD
690			_aPROPERTY
942			_n0
999			_c68508 _d68508