| 000 | 01073cab a22002055a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | L156262 | ||
| 008 | 120509e20120427xxk 000 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u156262 | ||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 100 | 1 | _aGatty, David | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | _aBroken promises? |
| 260 | _c2012 | ||
| 490 |
_aNew Law Journal _v162(7511) 27 April 2012, 563-564(2) |
||
| 520 | _aHighlights the pitfalls owner occupiers can face when entering into sale and rent back (SRBs) arrangements which allows the vendor ro remain in occupation under a lease granted by the purchaser. Where the SRB purchase is mortgage-funded and the mortgage provider is unaware that the vendor is to remain in occupation, the occupier can find himself/herself in a vulnerable position should the SRB purchaser default. CA has considered four test cases brought by SRB occupiers as a cojoined appeal "Cook v The Mortgage Business plc" and othes [2012] EWCA Civ 17. | ||
| 590 | _aKA | ||
| 651 | 4 |
_aEngland and Wales _y1543- |
|
| 690 |
_aLandlord and tenant _96252 |
||
| 690 |
_aResidential property _96266 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c83978 _d83978 |
||