Quick Property Sale Limited v Oladotun Olakunle Solaja & Anor

Quick Property Sale Limited v Oladotun Olakunle Solaja & Anor

The contract was unenforceable because it failed to incorporate all agreed terms as required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, specifically regarding the use and beneficial ownership of the deposit. Alternatively, the contract was set aside for undue influence, and was impossible to perform as the defendants could not redeem the mortgage or give vacant possession. The claimant was not entitled to specific performance or damages.

Parties
Claimant: Quick Property Sale Limited; Defendant: Oladotun Olakunle Solaja; Defendant: Olayemi Olajumoke Solaja
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Impossibility of Performance
Contract Law Property Law Equity Specific Performance Sale of Land Misrepresentation Undue Influence Impossibility of Performance

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quick Property Sale Limited

Claimant

Oladotun Olakunle Solaja

Defendant

Olayemi Olajumoke Solaja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of land is enforceable under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the contract was procured by misrepresentation or undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the contract was impossible to perform

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was unenforceable because it failed to incorporate all agreed terms as required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, specifically regarding the use and beneficial ownership of the deposit. Alternatively, the contract was set aside for undue influence, and was impossible to perform as the defendants could not redeem the mortgage or give vacant possession. The claimant was not entitled to specific performance or damages.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed