A Treatise on the Law of Vendor and Purchaser of Real Estate and Chattels Real; Intended for the Use of Conveyancers of Either Branch of the Profession Volume 2

A Treatise on the Law of Vendor and Purchaser of Real Estate and Chattels Real; Intended for the Use of Conveyancers of Either Branch of the Profession Volume 2

By (author) 

List price: US$29.78

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...vendor if the purchaser make default (/). But it appears that this exception applies (z) Above, pp. 726, 936. (-0 Above, pp. 915, 916, and Above n 938 n' W' p' 948 n" W (a) Above, p. MJ8. (e) nimn y Vfr Jg w R (A) Above, pp. 914, 91o. 151. lloKe T-Smith, 27 Ch. D. (c) Above, pp. 722 tq. 89; above, p. 22. (_/"; It is thought, that this conclusion follows from the decision and judgments given by the Court of Appeal in Howe v. Smith, 27 Ch. D. 89, in which case, it is important to note, the Court couaidered that the purchaser had committed such a breach or made such a reonly to money paid as a deposit, that is, in earnest or as a guarantee for the payer's due performance of the contract, and does not extend to other sums of money paid on account of the purchase money (g). And the question, whether the deposit is to he forfeited on the purchaser's default, is one of the parties' intention to nunciation of the contract as entitled the vendor to rescind, that the vendor had elected to rescind, and that he had resold, not under the power of resale in the contract, but as owner. In Jackson v. I)e Kadich, 1904, W. N. 168, however, Farwell, J., declined, on an application made ex parte by a vendor lawfully rescinding the contract for the purchaser's default, to make a declaration that he was entitled to a deposit placod as such, hut without provision for its application, in a stakeholder's hands. He remarked that the vendor cannot have rescission, and, at the same time, damages for the breach of the contract; and that in Howe v. Smith there was no rescission. On the latter point, however, he was mistaken, as we have seen. As to his other reason, no doubt the rule is that a vendor cannot at once have rescission and damages for breach: ...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 214 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 390g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • Miami Fl, United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236485416
  • 9781236485410