Purchasers of a property intended to finance the purchase from monies deposited in a bank in Nigeria. Due to a change in exchange control regulations, the money was received some six weeks late, and after a notice to complete had expired and the vendors had rescinded the contract.
Held: The trial judge struck out the purchaser’s writ and statement of claim seeking return of a deposit under s 49(2) of the 1925 Act. It would only be appropriate to make an order under s 49(2) where ‘the vendor’s conduct has been open to criticism in some way . . having some mark of equitable disfavour’.
Walton J
[1978] 3 All ER 1131
Law of Property Act 1925 49(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appal from – Universal Corporation v Five Ways Properties Limited CA 1978
The purchaser had failed to complete, notwithstanding the service of a notice to complete. The purchaser a Nigerian company suffered a delay in obtaining funds due to a change in the exchange control regulations. There was no attempt to exclude . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.653030
