header-logo header-logo

Between a rock & a hard place

08 June 2018 / Donald Lambert , Andrea Nicholls
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Features , Property , Commercial
printer mail-detail
nlj_7796_lambertnicholls

Don’t underestimate the value of a no oral modification clause, say Donald Lambert & Andrea Nicholls

  • Demonstrates the value of a no oral modification clause.
  • Offers practical pointers.

Property professionals are familiar with the idea that many contracts creating an interest in real property must be in writing and signed by all the parties, or the contract will have no effect. Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 provides that contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land must be in writing and signed by all the parties. This provides certainty and removes the risk of misunderstandings and litigation.

Licences to occupy real property, however, fall outside this regime, as do many other contracts dealt with by property professionals. Outside of those areas where writing is a statutory requirement, oral contracts are perfectly permissible and enforceable.

A licence to occupy does not create an interest in land; it is merely a personal contract between the occupier and the owner

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