||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 101 (Jun)
Alan Steinfeld QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court
||James Hanham (instructed by Hexstalls LLP) for the defendant.
||Chima Umezurike (instructed by Osibanjo & Co Solicitors) for the claimant.
||12 June 2007
Sale of land - Deposit - Forfeiture - Contract between claimant purchaser and defendant vendor purporting to exclude statutory provision - Purchaser failing to complete - Vendor rescinding contract and forfeiting deposit - Purchaser claiming return of deposit - Whether parties being able to exclude statutory provision - , s 49(2).
Sale of land Deposit. It was not possible for parties to a contract for the sale of land to agree between themselves to exclude the courts jurisdiction under s49(2) of the . Section 49(2) did not confer a right or benefit upon parties. What it did was to confer jurisdiction upon the courts to exercise its discretion in favour of a purchaser. A provision in a contract which purported to exclude s49(2) was a provision which purported to oust the jurisdiction of the court and was on grounds of public policy void.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary