- Court of Appeal disallows inconsistent mortgage terms (Alexander v West Bromwich)
- Practical implications
- How did the inconsistency and incorporation issue arise?
- What did the mortgage documents provide?
- The approach to construing the mortgage documentation—the factual matrix
- Approaching inconsistency in contractual provisions and the relevance of an 'inconsistency clause'
- Was the Mortgage Condition allowing the lender to vary the rate inconsistent with the Offer Document?
- Was the Mortgage Condition allowing the lender to demand repayment of the loan on one month's notice inconsistent with the Offer Document?
- Observations of Sir Brian Leveson
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that terms giving the lender rights to vary interest rates and demand full repayment of a 25–year ‘tracker’ mortgage on one month’s notice (absent breach) contained in printed standard mortgage conditions were inconsistent (and therefore not incorporated) into the specially agreed terms of the parties as evidenced in the offer of loan. Such terms were inconsistent with the purpose and object of the contract and emasculated the ‘the obligations seemingly being entered into by the Offer Document’. The judgment confirms the court’s approach to dealing with an alleged inconsistency between specially agreed terms and printed standard terms, whether such documentation includes a specific 'inconsistency clause' (as in this case) or not.
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