Contracts

A contract for the sale of land, or of any interest in land, is void unless it complies with Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s 2 (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

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

Re Stealth Construction [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) indicates that emails might contain the elements required to comply with LP(MP)A 1989, s 2. Consequently, emails containing the terms of a proposed agreement should be marked 'subject to contract' to avoid inadvertently and prematurely creating a binding agreement.

In exceptional cases the court has saved contracts from the full rigour of LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 by finding that terms omitted from the contract did not relate to the sale of the land, but formed a separate collateral contract.

LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 does not affect the creation

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

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents