000			01495cab a22002655a 4500
001			L144879
008			080815s2008 xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144879
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aRider, Deborah
245	0	0	_aDoes a failure to complete justify forfeiture of a deposit? _ban analysis of recent case law _h[electronic resource]
260			_aLondon _bPLA _c2008
520			_aDiscusses the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch), (see L143243). 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. As a result, the company lost their deposit. Summarises the background to the case and comments on the position prior to the Midill case. Comments on the case and considers whether the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 can be avoided.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aOMAR V EL-WAKIL
650	2	4	_aUNIVERSAL CORPORATION V FIVE WAYS PROPERTIES LTD
650	2	4	_aTENNARO LTD V MAJORARCH LTD
650	2	4	_aARIBISALA V ST JAMES HOMES (GROSVENOR DOCK) LTD
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.pla.org.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0007/61927/Deborah_Rider.doc _zDownload this Word document on the pla.org.uk website.
942			_n0
999			_c80624 _d80624