Philip Sissons & Ciara Fairley analyse a recent Court of Appeal decision on the enforceability of oral agreements
In Keay v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 900 the Court of Appeal revisited the paradoxical consequences of s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LPMPA 1989) and its own earlier judgments in Grossman v Hooper [2001] EWCA Civ 615 and Tootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Ltd (1992) 64 P & CR 452. Anyone hoping that the paradox would be resolved will be disappointed, but the case is interesting for what it says about the circumstances in which arguments premised on the problematic consequences of the section may succeed.
The problem
Section 2, LPMPA 1989 provides:
“2. Contracts for sale etc of land to be made by signed writing
- A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed and in one document
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
