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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll