North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman & Anor

North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman & Anor

The contracts are not void under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because the 2% finder's fee was, by express agreement, not part of the written contract and the entire agreement clause precludes its inclusion. The purchasers were not entitled to serve notices to complete before the vendor had served notice of completion as required by the contract. Although the vendor was in breach of the obligation to complete with due dispatch, the breach was not repudiatory and the purchasers did not validly elect to rescind. The contracts remain in force and the vendor is entitled to specific performance.

Parties
Claimant: North Eastern Properties Limited; Defendant: Damian Coleman; Defendant: Patrick Quinn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Vendor and Purchaser Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Specific performance granted in favour of the vendor; contracts remain in force.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Vendor and Purchaser, Rescission of Contract, Entire Agreement Clause, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Vendor and Purchaser Rescission of Contract Entire Agreement Clause Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Eastern Properties Limited

Claimant

Damian Coleman

Defendant

Patrick Quinn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Vendor and Purchaser Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contracts are void and unenforceable for failure to comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the purchasers validly rescinded the contracts due to delay in completion
  3. 3 Whether the vendor was in repudiatory breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contracts are not void under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because the 2% finder's fee was, by express agreement, not part of the written contract and the entire agreement clause precludes its inclusion. The purchasers were not entitled to serve notices to complete before the vendor had served notice of completion as required by the contract. Although the vendor was in breach of the obligation to complete with due dispatch, the breach was not repudiatory and the purchasers did not validly elect to rescind. The contracts remain in force and the vendor is entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Specific performance granted in favour of the vendor; contracts remain in force.

Orders

  • The purchasers are ordered to specifically perform the contracts for the purchase of the 11 flats.