Munton v Greater London Council: CA 1976

With respect to the words ‘subject to contract’, Lord Denning said, ‘It is of the greatest importance that no doubt should be thrown on the effect of those words’. As to the difference netween the procedures of compulsory purchase and ordinary contracts: ‘First, when notice to treat is given, it binds the acquiring authority to purchase and the owner to sell at a price to be ascertained . . Second, when there is an unconditional agreement fixing the price – whether in writing or by word of mouth – it is the equivalent of a binding contract between the parties . . . Once, therefore a notice to treat has been served and there is an agreement on the price, a binding obligation is created which is equivalent to a contract between the parties.’

Lord Denning MR
[1976] 1 WLR 649
Law of Property Act 1925 840
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedVon Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .

Cited by:
CitedConfetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) ChD 23-May-2003
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained ‘subject to contract’. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment.
Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.183733