A case of asset stripping?
A vendor is clearly in breach of contract if, before giving up possession, he removes items that ranked as fixtures at the date upon which contracts were exchanged. In Taylor v Hamer [2002] 33 EG 96 (CS), the question before the Court of Appeal was whether this applied where ancient flagstones had been removed following the last inspection made by the purchaser but prior to exchange.
Although the decision (Arden LJ dissenting) went in favour of the purchaser, the case has to be treated with caution. The critical occurrence was an outright lie told by the vendor’s solicitor in response to a pertinent enquiry. But for the aforementioned porky, it seems that the seller would have been able to rely, inter alia, upon condition 3.2.1 of the standard conditions of sale, which states (with certain immaterial exceptions) that the buyer accepts the property “in the physical state it is in at the date of the contract”.
The case has not escaped criticism: see
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and expert analysis
A case of asset stripping?
A vendor is clearly in breach of contract if, before giving up possession, he removes items that ranked as fixtures at the date upon which contracts were exchanged. In Taylor v Hamer [2002] 33 EG 96 (CS), the question before the Court of Appeal was whether this applied where ancient flagstones had been removed following the last inspection made by the purchaser but prior to exchange.
Although the decision (Arden LJ dissenting) went in favour of the purchaser, the case has to be treated with caution. The critical occurrence was an outright lie told by the vendor’s solicitor in response to a pertinent enquiry. But for the aforementioned porky, it seems that the seller would have been able to rely, inter alia, upon condition 3.2.1 of the standard conditions of sale, which states (with certain immaterial exceptions) that the buyer accepts the property “in the physical state it is in at the date of the contract”.
The case has not escaped criticism: see A modern morality tale Estates Gazette 14 September 2002, p153.
