header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2013 / Daniel Gatty
Issue: 7576 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Time to sit up & take notice

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000016582578medium

If someone fails to buy land by the agreed date, when can the other party terminate the contract? Daniel Gatty reports

Failure to complete a contract to purchase land by the agreed date does not usually entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract immediately. Generally, there will be an express requirement to serve a notice to complete first. Will the innocent party always be able to terminate after serving a notice to complete? And when can the innocent party terminate without serving a notice to complete? These were the issues considered in Urban I (Blonk Street) Ltd v Ayres [2013] EWCA Civ 816.

Mr and Mrs Ayres agreed to buy an apartment in the claimant’s development off-plan. The contract did not fix a completion date for the development. It provided that when the building of the apartment was finished the developer would give notice; completion of the purchase was to take place within 10 days of service of that notice. There was no long-stop date for completion, but

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
NLJ this week: Stealing virtual gold?
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
NLJ this week: Don’t let your LPA gather dust
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll