The court contrasted the position under the SCS with that under the SCPC. The buyer treated this as a repudiatory breach by the seller, and rescinded the contract. The seller replied that the contract was not assignable, and that he was not prepared to transfer the property to anyone other than the buyer. The buyer sent the seller a draft transfer in favour of the sub-purchasers for approval. These provide (at condition 1.5) that 'The buyer is not entitled to transfer the benefit of the contract'. The principal contract incorporated the SCS. The buyer intended that the transaction would be completed by a single transfer from the seller to the sub-purchasers. He found a willing buyer, although contracts for the sub-sale were never in fact exchanged. After exchange the buyer decided to sub-sell the property. The parties exchanged contracts in July 2007 for the sale and purchase of a townhouse. In Pittack v Naviede, the High Court has reviewed the differences between the two sets of conditions in order to rule on the question of whether the SCS permit sub-sales. Along with their residential counterpart, the Standard Conditions of Sale, 4th edition (SCS), they are commonly used by conveyancers to form the basis of a contract for sale, with the contract then including additional, bespoke, provisions negotiated between the parties. Most commercial property contracts incorporate the Standard Commercial Property Conditions, 2nd edition (SCPC). Contract Incorporating the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition - 2018 Revision).
0 kommentar(er)
