A contract for the sale of land provided that, upon service of a notice to complete, the transaction should ‘be completed within 15 working days of service and in respect of such period time shall be of the essence’. The notices however substituted a period of 28 days for the period of 15 days. The purchaser, lacking the necessary funds, failed to complete within the period of 28 days; then, having obtained the necessary funds a few days later, sought specific performance of the contract. The vendor claimed that he had rescinded the contract on the purchaser’s failure to comply with the notice to complete.
Held: The notice was effective. There was only one sense in which any reasonable recipient would have read it, viz. that the vendor would not exercise the rights conferred by the contract (to rescind if the purchaser did not complete within 15 days), provided that the purchaser completed within 28 days. (Bingham L.J.) ‘The authorities show that a notice will be invalid and ineffective unless it gives the precise notice which the contract requires and leaves the recipient in no reasonable doubt as to the effect of the notice.’
Judges:
Slade LJ, Bingham LJ
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 445
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.185086