References: Unreported, 7 July 1981
Coram: Goulding J
Two prospectively separate purchasers in a later ‘subject to contract’ arrangement between them had replaced their earlier concluded agreement as to how a property, if acquired, would be dealt with.
Held: Effect was to be given to the agreement by way of constructive trust, not to the ‘subject to contract’ arrangement but simply to the notion that the two parties should be obliged to share.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Banner Homes Group Plc -v- Luff Developments and Another CA (Gazette 10-Feb-00, Times 17-Feb-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 18, [2002] 2 All ER 117, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 3016, [2000] 2 WLR 772, [2000] Ch 372)
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . . - Cited – Gonthier and Another -v- Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 873)
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . . - Cited – Thames Cruises Limited -v- George Wheeler Launches Limited, Kingwood Launches Limited ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 3093 (Ch))
The parties had previously worked to gether to provide ferry services on the Thames. A new tender to operate the services was not submitted. It was alleged that the Defendants had inequitably seized for themselves a business opportunity which the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Mar-16 Ref: 188287
