Francis v F Berndes Ltd & Ors

Francis v F Berndes Ltd & Ors

The 7 January 2004 letter did not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because it failed to set out in writing the mutual obligation of the purchasers to buy the property; this omission could not be cured by extrinsic evidence or rectification, rendering the agreement ineffective.

Parties
Claimant: Patrick Francis; First Defendant: F. Berndes Limited; Defendants: Children of Desmond Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to permission to apply to amend for restitution claim
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Formal Requirements for Contracts, Rectification, Restitution, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Property Law Sale of Land Formal Requirements for Contracts Rectification Restitution Summary Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Francis

Claimant

F. Berndes Limited

First Defendant

Children of Desmond Hughes

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 7 January 2004 letter constituted a valid contract for the sale of land under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an express written obligation to purchase invalidated the agreement
  3. 3 Whether rectification or restitution claims could be pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The 7 January 2004 letter did not comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because it failed to set out in writing the mutual obligation of the purchasers to buy the property; this omission could not be cured by extrinsic evidence or rectification, rendering the agreement ineffective.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to permission to apply to amend for restitution claim

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act
  • Claimant permitted to apply for permission to amend to raise a restitution claim before the Master