Is it possible to satisfy the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 if a party has inscribed his or her initials in the margin of a document in order to authorise an amendment?
The High Court decision in Newell v Tarrant [2004] EWHC 772 (Ch); [2004] PLSCS 93 confirms that initialling an amendment in the margin of a document will not suffice for the purposes of s2. A contract will only comply with s2 if the parties to the document have signified assent to all its terms.
A signature by initials will only suffice if it is clear that the signee intended to authenticate the entire document.
Allyson Colby is a professional support lawyer at Wragge & Co LLP.
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
Is it possible to satisfy the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 if a party has inscribed his or her initials in the margin of a document in order to authorise an amendment?
The High Court decision in Newell v Tarrant [2004] EWHC 772 (Ch); [2004] PLSCS 93 confirms that initialling an amendment in the margin of a document will not suffice for the purposes of s2. A contract will only comply with s2 if the parties to the document have signified assent to all its terms.
A signature by initials will only suffice if it is clear that the signee intended to authenticate the entire document.
Allyson Colby is a professional support lawyer at Wragge & Co LLP.
