header-logo header-logo

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

Getting it back!

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll