Site icon swarb.co.uk

Hare v Nicoll: CA 1966

In an option for the renewal of a lease, or for the purchase or re-purchase of property, the contractual right must be exercised strictly within the time limited for the purpose, otherwise it will lapse. Danckwerts LJ said: ‘The authority cited for that proposition is a very striking case, Dibbins v. Dibbins, a decision of Chitty J. In that case an option for a surviving partner to purchase a deceased partner’s share had to be exercised within three months of his death. A notice within the three months was given by solicitors on behalf of the surviving partner, but he was of unsound mind, and therefore the notice was not effective. Under an order in lunacy, a fresh notice was given, but it was too late in time, and equally ineffective. The rule really is long established, as Ranelagh (Lord) v. Melton (a decision of Kindersley V-C) and other cases show.’

Danckwerts LJ
[1966] 2 QB 130, [1966] 1 All ER 285
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHolwell Securities Ltd v Hughes CA 5-Nov-1973
An option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing’ before a certain date. The solicitors’ letter doing so was addressed to the defendant at his residence and place of work, the house which was the subject of the option to purchase, was posted by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.223445

Exit mobile version