header-logo header-logo

Getting it back!

12 June 2008 / Kate Chambers
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession , Commercial
printer mail-detail

What do courts have to consider when deciding whether or not to return a buyer's deposit? asks Kate Chambers

The recent case of Aribisala v St James' Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd [2008] EWHC 456 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 201 (Mar) considers the importance of deposits in conveyancing transactions and highlights the significance of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) in relation to the terms upon which a deposit is given.

Significance of a Deposit

The buyer's payment of a deposit as part payment of the total purchase price, is taken as a reliable indicator of a willingness to proceed. It is commonly accepted that the buyer is likely to forfeit the deposit if there is a failure to fulfil the contract. The Standard Conditions of Sale (4th Ed) provide that should the buyer fail to complete the seller is entitled to retain the deposit. Additionally, the case of Hall v Burnell [1911] 2 Ch 551, [1911-13] All ER Rep 631 clarified

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll