Re Scott and Alvarez’s Contract No 2: CA 1895

Lindley LJ discussed the circumstances under which a deposit paid under a contract for the sale of land could be returned. Even where specific performance was refused to the vendor because the title was wholly defective, the purchaser might be left unable to rescind by the terms of the contract, and therefore unable in law to claim return of the deposit: ‘There is no question of discretion in such a case as that . . The legal answer is this: ‘There is no breach of contract at all; you have taken your chance with respect to your deposit; and unless you shew a breach by the vendor of his bargain, you are not entitled to have that deposit back.”


Lindley LJ


[1895] 2 Ch 603

Cited by:

CitedMIDILL (97Pl) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and Another CA 11-Nov-2008
Refusal to return Land Contract Deposit
The court was asked as to whether a seller could retain a deposit paid by the claimant on a sale where contracts had been exchanged but the buyer had proved unable to go ahead.
Held: The appeal against refusal of return of the deposit failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.279042