Pittack v Naviede

Pittack v Naviede

Clause 1.5 of the Standard Conditions of Sale (4th edition) does not exclude sub-sales by direct transfer to a sub-purchaser. The purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the deposit because the vendor improperly refused to transfer to a sub-purchaser and failed to provide a timely licence to assign.

Parties
Claimant: Daniel Pittack; Defendant: Muhammad Maximilian Naviede
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/conveyancing) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed for return of deposit with interest; no order on claim for lien over the property.
Legal Topics
Conveyancing, Sub Sales, Assignment of Contract, Licence to Assign, Standard Conditions of Sale
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Sub Sales Assignment of Contract Licence to Assign Standard Conditions of Sale

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Pittack

Claimant

Muhammad Maximilian Naviede

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/conveyancing) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 1.5 of the Standard Conditions of Sale (4th edition) excludes sub-sales by direct transfer to a sub-purchaser
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the deposit due to the vendor's refusal to transfer to a sub-purchaser and/or failure to provide a licence to assign

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 1.5 of the Standard Conditions of Sale (4th edition) does not exclude sub-sales by direct transfer to a sub-purchaser. The purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the deposit because the vendor improperly refused to transfer to a sub-purchaser and failed to provide a timely licence to assign.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for return of deposit with interest; no order on claim for lien over the property.

Orders

  • The claimant is entitled to the return of the deposit with interest.
  • No order on the claim for a lien over the property.