‘I have been asked to talk this afternoon about breach of contract, specifically what strategies can be adopted in the event that one party fails to complete under the terms of the contract. What are the options for escaping the contract or, alternatively, for forcing the other party to complete?
Falcon Chambers, September 2016
‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths . Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016
‘Contracts for the sale of land can fail to complete for many reasons. The Standard Conditions and Standard Commercial Conditions require a 10% deposit to be paid on exchange of contracts. This can amount to a substantial sum of money. Purchasers will know that where they fail to complete it is commonplace for the vendor to retain that deposit. In the current market, with property prices soaring ever higher, the out-of-pocket purchaser may be justified in feeling that the vendor has obtained a windfall in keeping the deposit and selling the property on to a third party at a higher price.’
Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016
‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2016
‘On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and another. The judgment in this long-running case addresses the issue of a consumer’s right, in the context of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, to rescind the credit agreement on lawful rescission of the sale agreement.’
Henderson Chambers, 28th March 2014
A restricted-use credit agreement under section 12(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which related to a specified supply transaction was conditional upon the substantive survival of that supply transaction, so that a purchaser who rescinded the supply agreement for breach of contract could also rescind the credit agreement.
WLR Daily, 26th March 2014
Court of Appeal
“International supply contracts which excluded liability for misrepresentation and the right to rescind were not subject to the requirement of reasonableness.”
The Times, 15th April 2009
“The contractual right of rescission under condition 8.3.3 of the Standard Conditions of Sale had to be exercised promptly, which meant by the contractual completion date, or possibly, within a day or two thereafter.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2008
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.