Formalities

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 29-02-16 11:21
Keay v Morris Homes (2012)
Rimer LJ: downside of formalities= its effect is merciless as it offers a trap to the unwary
1 of 31
North Eastern Properties v Coleman (2010)
Formalities enc parties, who no longer wish to perform oblig’n by claiming the contract is not valid as it does not comply with formality req’ts
2 of 31
Scottish & Newcastle v Lancashire (2007)
Non-stat exception: an agreement concerning priority between 2 mortgages
3 of 31
Eagle Star v Green (2001)
Non-stat exception: the execution of a mortgage deed as opposed to the contract to create the mortgage itself
4 of 31
Ruddick v Ormoston (2005)
HC: there was no contract at all because neither page set out the mutual oblig’ns of the parties
5 of 31
Francis v F Berndes (2011)
Here no valid contract as there was no written record in the signed doc of the mutual oblgns to buy and sell the prop
6 of 31
Grunhot v Ramadas (2002)
A forged signature will not suffice, unless it is authorised by the contracting party
7 of 31
Firstpost Homes v Johnson (1995)
Signauture is widely defined – however, CA: does not include typed inclusion of name and addresses of purchaser
8 of 31
Green v Ireland (2011)
Electronic sig’s on an email could suffice for purposes of s 2 – this was even so, where the signatories had only used their first names. An email and its reply could be taken together to amount to a doc for s 2
9 of 31
Tootal Clothing v Guinea Properties (1997)
It is possible for parties to put parts of their arrangements into sep and distinct contracts
10 of 31
Francis v F Berndes (2011)
Contract invalid as it failed to identify the purchaser
11 of 31
Ruddick v Ormston (2005)
If completion is to occur by or on an agreed date, then this becomes an express term and must be made explicit in the signed contract
12 of 31
Green v Ireland (2011)
Trad’l thought was that exchange cannot occur by email or fax, but this rule is somewhat eroding
13 of 31
Firstpost Homes v Johnson (1995)
CA: a doc can include more than one page or piece of paper, provided that the pages/pieces fall to be regarded as an integral whole
14 of 31
Courtney v Corp (2006)
It is possible for 2 docs to be joined together by express or implied ref to one another
15 of 31
Wright v Robert Leonard (1994)
CA rectified contract so as to include omitted term and cure defect
16 of 31
Oun v Ahmed (2008)
Claim failed as the expressly agreed term had been deliberately omitted from the written contract
17 of 31
Sergeant v Reese (2008)
There is no need for the agreed term to have been discussed in exact and precise language
18 of 31
Wimpole (2012)
The term was not included in the written contract by mutual/unilateral mistake
19 of 31
Swainland v Freehold (2002)
i.e. the instrument did not reflect he common intention of the parties
20 of 31
Spiro v Glencrown Props (1991)
If fail to comply with s 2, the contract has no legal sig whatsoever
21 of 31
Maimouni v Hamid (1993)
Hobhouse J: if s 2 was not complied with, then, unless in very special circums, it would appear that there cannot be an equity available to the def
22 of 31
Thorner v Major (2009)
Ingredients for estoppel: a clear/unequivocal rep to C; reasonable reliance by C; detriment by C
23 of 31
Haq (2011)
Reasonable reliance requires a causal link between inducement and reliance; and, the rep must provide inducement to act in a particular way
24 of 31
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row (2008)
Lord Walker: the conduct must shock the conscience of the court
25 of 31
Bradbury v Taylor (2012)
Lloyd LJ: the award cannot be out of prop to the reliance and the unconscionableness of allowing the rep to be resiled from
26 of 31
Sledmore v Dalby (1996)
C can never have more than that which was assured and the court is expected to award minimum equity nec to achieve justice
27 of 31
Suggitt v Suggitt (2012)
Courts most likely to exercise estoppel in domestic than commercial settings
28 of 31
LP(MP)A 1989, s 2
For a land contract to be valid it must be: in writing, contain all the express terms and be signed by both parties – otherwise it is void
29 of 31
LP(MP)A 1989, s 2(5)
Exceptions: short leases; contracts; public auction contracts
30 of 31
LP(MP)A 1989, s 2(4)
Rectification is an equitable remedy by which the courts may rewrite the written contract so as to cater for an express term that was agreed, but was by mistake omitted from the written contract
31 of 31

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Formalities enc parties, who no longer wish to perform oblig’n by claiming the contract is not valid as it does not comply with formality req’ts

Back

North Eastern Properties v Coleman (2010)

Card 3

Front

Non-stat exception: an agreement concerning priority between 2 mortgages

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Non-stat exception: the execution of a mortgage deed as opposed to the contract to create the mortgage itself

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

HC: there was no contract at all because neither page set out the mutual oblig’ns of the parties

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Land resources »