000			01407cad a22002295a 4500
001			L143243
008			080418e20080116xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u143243
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMidill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWHC 18 (Ch) 16 January 2008. The case was a reminder that a failure to complete will nearly always lead to a deposit being forfeited. The case concerned a company that had paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but had not been ready, able or willing to complete. The claimant prospective buyer (M) claimed the return of the deposit and damages for breach of contract. Held: claim dismissed. The fact that the seller then sold the property to a third party at a higher price did not constitute a special circumstance such that the court should exercise its discretion and order the return of the deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aSTANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE
650	2	4	_aOMAR V EL-WAKIL
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
651		4	_aEngland and Wales
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/18.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80108 _d80108