- ‘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
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial