Agreements under the planning acts remained subject to the general law requiring formalities for contracts for the sale of land. Where two landowners had an understanding as to the expectations for the division of responsibility for provision of affordable housing between their respective plots, one could not be obliged to continue where the contract was incomplete. A planning agreement allowed one party to require the other to sell land to a nominated beneficiary at a discounted price. This amounted to a contract to sell the land, and so, in order to be enforceable, it had to be signed by all the parties. It was permissible to blue pencil certain parts of the agreement relating to this aspect and leave the rest enforceable.
Mr David Mackie QC
Times 22-Aug-1999, Gazette 30-Jun-1999,  39 EG 149
England and Wales
Cited – McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
Distinguished – Nweze and Another v Nwoko CA 29-Mar-2004
The parties had settled their dispute in an oral compromise agreement under which it was agreed that land would be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable. One now argued this was unenforceable as an agreement for the disposal of land requiring . .
Appeal from – Jelson Ltd v Derbyshire County Council CA 1-Aug-1999
Section 2 of the 1989 Act had to bite at the point where a party could be compelled, in certain circumstances, which could or could not come about, to sell or dispose of an interest in land. The agreement here contained in effect an option for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.82509