Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • KEAY V MORRIS Law of Contract

    Uploaded by

    paco kazungu
    32 views1 page
    The parties disputed whether an oral agreement for Keay to lease a medical center from Morris Homes was enforceable, as contracts for land transfers must be in writing. The judge granted Keay's application, finding Morris Homes had no prospect of arguing the agreement was void, despite it being oral, as Morris Homes knew of and agreed to the lease arrangement. In a separate case, a buyer bid on two crops at auction but was only awarded one. The court found there was no contract as the auctioneer negligently misled the buyer, and the seller knew the buyer was mistaken.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    KEAY v MORRIS Law of Contract

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The parties disputed whether an oral agreement for Keay to lease a medical center from Morris Homes was enforceable, as contracts for land transfers must be in writing. The judge granted Keay's application, finding Morris Homes had no prospect of arguing the agreement was void, despite it being oral, as Morris Homes knew of and agreed to the lease arrangement. In a separate case, a buyer bid on two crops at auction but was only awarded one. The court found there was no contract as the auctioneer negligently misled the buyer, and the seller knew the buyer was mistaken.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    32 views1 page

    KEAY V MORRIS Law of Contract

    Uploaded by

    paco kazungu
    The parties disputed whether an oral agreement for Keay to lease a medical center from Morris Homes was enforceable, as contracts for land transfers must be in writing. The judge granted Keay's application, finding Morris Homes had no prospect of arguing the agreement was void, despite it being oral, as Morris Homes knew of and agreed to the lease arrangement. In a separate case, a buyer bid on two crops at auction but was only awarded one. The court found there was no contract as the auctioneer negligently misled the buyer, and the seller knew the buyer was mistaken.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    KEAY V MORRIS HOMES (WEST MIDLANDS) LTD [2012] EWCA CIV 900

    Facts: The parties here exchanged a contract for the sale of land by the claimant to the defendant. As
    well as the original agreement (which did comply with the need for the contract to be in writing), Keay
    agreed to lease a medical centre that Morris Homes was obliged to build → the grant of planning
    permission was a condition of the sale agreement. Keay argued they had agreed to this orally, but
    Morris Homes said that such an agreement would not comply with the requirement that contracts for
    the transfer of land are required to be made in writing

    Held: J. Simon Barker QC nevertheless granted the application and said that Morris Homes had no real
    prospect of arguing that the agreement was void

    SCRIVEN BROS & CO V HINDLEY & CO [1913] 3 KB 564

    Facts: A buyer wanted to buy 2 crops at an auction. He bid for them and found he had only got one of
    the crops.

    Held: The auctioneer tried to enforce the sale of the crops but he could not do so because the sale had
    been procured by the auctioneer’s own negligence. So there was no contract because the seller knew
    the buyer was under a mistake

    You might also like