Residential contracts

A contract for the sale of land, or of any interest in land, is void unless it complies with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). It must:

  1. be in writing

  2. contain or incorporate all of the terms expressly agreed by the parties, and

  3. be signed by or on behalf of the parties (either by way of a single document signed by all the parties or separate documents each signed by one or more parties)

A contract becomes effective when the last party signs, so the practice of exchanging identical contracts in counterpart has been created to control when the contract comes into force. This is usually carried out in accordance with the Law Society’s Formulae for exchanging contracts by telephone.

If a contract is varied after exchange, the variation must be in a document that itself complies with LP(MP)A 1989, s 2.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Contracts for the sale of land—formation, signature and variation.

Standard Conditions of Sale

Residential contracts are generally formed by incorporating standard conditions of sale.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents