The defendant and the deceased had purchased a house as joint tenants in equity. The claimant sought to enforce an agreement for the sale of the defendant’s half share. Payment having been made. The defendant argued that the agreement was uncertain and unenforceable.
Held: The agreement appeared to have been made under a misapprehension as to the legal position. The mistake appeared to have been created by the party seeking to rely on it, and equity could refuse specific performance of the contract. The claimant had also delayed her action. Specific performance was refused. Declaration as to interests accordingly.
Purle QC J
[2009] EWHC 1908 (Ch), [2009] Fam Law 1044, [2010] 1 FLR 610, [2009] 2 P and CR DG21
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd CA 14-Oct-2002
The parties contracted for the hire of a ship. They were each under a mistaken impression as to its position, and a penalty became payable. The hirer claimed that the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake should forgive him liability.
Held: . .
Cited – Milward v Earl Thanet CA 1801
Lord Alvanley MR said: ‘a party cannot call upon a Court of Equity for specific performance, unless he has shewn himself ready, desirous, prompt, and eager.’ . .
Cited – P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 13-Dec-2006
An order for specific performance had been refused in a disputed contract for carriage. The claimant argued that normal limitation periods should not be applied by analogy.
Held: Because there was no corresponding legal remedy the remedy in . .
Cited – Williams v Greatrex CA 1956
A purchaser agreed to buy land to be laid out in building plots. On payment of a deposit and giving notice, the purchaser was to be entitled to enter onto a particular plot in order to build on it. The arrangement met with difficulties, with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract, Equity
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.361469
