The parties had exchanged a contract for a residential development land sale in Horsham, for £2.225 million. The contract contained a clause requiring the Seller to assign to the Buyer the copyright in various consultants’ plans, surveys and reports.
Notice to Complete served
The Buyer failed to complete on the Completion Date due to funding difficulties. The Completion Date had already been postponed and so the Sellers served a notice to complete requiring completion within 10 working days. The Seller terminated the contract and forfeited the deposit when the Buyer failed to comply.
The Buyer claimed that the Seller had breached the contract by terminating it because the Seller had not been poised for completion. The Seller had not properly complied with its obligations to assign the copyright and could only produce licences, which had also been dated incorrectly.
Was Seller genuinely able to complete?
The Court agreed with the Buyer that the Seller’s failure to comply with the obligation to assign copyright was not a mere administrative failure but a “matter of substance”. A server of a notice to complete must be ready to set in motion any necessary administrative arrangement to ensure completion within the time limit specified in the notice. The Seller in this case, was not. However, the Buyer had failed to raise this as a point of objection despite numerous opportunities. The Buyer was therefore taken to have acquiesced in the breach and the Court found for the Seller.
This case should be a reminder, for both landowners and developers, of the strict requirements to comply with condition precedents on completion, even where conditions appear to be administrative or trivial.
Disclaimer: While we do all that is possible in terms of ensuring its accuracy, this blog contains general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You need to consult a suitably qualified lawyer from the firm on any specific legal problem or matter.
Other Property Development Articles
Barr Ellison acted in a successful application to modify a restrictive covenant for a developer which otherwise prevented their redevelopment of a site in Cambridge.
Restrictive covenants can be a headache for developers who have otherwise found the perfect piece of land on which to carry out their dream development.
It is always preferable for leases to contain express reservations to alter, build and erect scaffolding in favour of a landlord who might want to develop at some point in the future.
A Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to developers of the dangers of proceeding with developments in breach of a restrictive covenant.
It is a strict requirement that a party needs to be in compliance with all conditions precedent before serving a notice to complete a property transaction.
Appellants would be well advised to take care when introducing new evidence to a planning appeal, ensuring that it is available in good time for public inspection, usually via the local authority’s website.
The Supreme Court held that the landlord’s intention to demolish or reconstruct must be independent of the tenant’s claim for a new tenancy and not conditional upon it.
Barr Ellison once again sponsored the Innovation of the Year category at this year’s Cambridge Property Awards.
A landmark case has clarified the scope of an action for nuisance based on the presence of Japanese knotweed.
Overage disputes: Court likely to strictly and literally interpret the provisions of an overage agreement between experienced developers.