|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Tennaro v Majorach (2003)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006
[2003] EWHC 2601 (ChD). The intended buyer of three flats entered into the usual contract
with the seller, under which the buyer had to pay a substantial deposit, and the depost would
be forfeit to the seller in the event of the buyer's default. The transactions for the
first two flats were completed; during the third the buyer suffered financial difficulties,
and was unable to complete. The seller relied on the contract to retain the deposit. Eventually
the buyer offered to buy the third flat, and had a higher price than the market value. The seller refused.
The buyer applied to the court for return of the deposit under s.49(2) of the LPA1925. This
subsection allows the court to order a return where it is necessary in the interests of
justice. This power is rarely exercised, despite that fact that a ForfeitureOfDeposit clause is
effectively a penalty clause, and despite that the seller has suffered no financial loss
(see OmarVElWakil2002). In this case, however, the court held that the retention of the
deposit was a cynical move on the part of the seller, to capitalise on the buyer's temporary
difficulties. The fact that the buyer had offered to complete for a higher price than market value
meant that allowing the seller to retain the deposit would be unjust.
ContractLaw
LandAndPropertyLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|