Legal News

‘Subject to contract’—what it says on the tin (Farrar and another v Rylatt and others)

‘Subject to contract’—what it says on the tin (Farrar and another v Rylatt and others)
Published on: 12 November 2019
Published by: LexisPSL
  • ‘Subject to contract’—what it says on the tin (Farrar and another v Rylatt and others)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Commercial analysis: In Farrar v Rylatt, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that there was no oral profit share agreement in relation to the first development in question and, in relation to the second development, there was no binding profit share agreement in circumstances where the relevant clauses were part of a document expressly said to be ‘subject to contract’. Written by Kristina Lukacova, barrister, at New Square Chambers. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents