Search

How can we help?

Icon

Take care when providing replies to pre-contract enquiries

When selling a property, a standard procedure is for the seller to provide replies to enquiries raised by the Buyer and its solicitors.  The standard form of enquiries that is often used for commercial transactions (“CPSEs”) specifically states that the Seller acknowledges that it is obliged to provide the Buyer with copies of all relevant documentation whether or not the specifically requested to do so and that prior to exchange of contracts, it will notify the Buyer on becoming aware of anything which may cause any reply that it has given to any enquiry to be incorrect.

In the recent case of Greenridge Luton One Limited v Kempton Investments Limited [2016] EWHC 91 (Ch) the Buyer was awarded not only the return of its deposit but damages for deceit of almost £400,000.

In this case the Seller owned a property consisting of three office buildings, most of which was leased to a travel company (the Tenant).  The lease provided for payment of a service charge and the Tenant disputed the service charge and withheld payments.

At that time the Seller was trying to sell the freehold property and the consultant acting for the Seller told the Seller that he thought that the Tenant was trying to adversely affect the sale.

In anticipation of a purchaser being found, the consultant had prepared draft replies to CPSEs and had forwarded these to a director of the Seller.  The replies, which were sent to prospective buyers, said that there were no outstanding disputes or arrears, no disputes relating to the service charge, no unresolved disputes or breaches of covenant and only stated that the Tenant had made “further enquiries”.  The Buyer asked for further information, but none was provided.

The Buyer and the Seller exchanged contracts and the Buyer paid a deposit.

The contract specifically stated that the Seller would sell the property free from encumbrances, that full disclosure had been given of any encumbrance, that a buyer would be entitled to rescind the contract where an error or omission resulted from fraud or recklessness and required provision of accounts of outstanding service charges.

The Buyer became aware of the service charge arrears and repudiated the contract in accordance with the contract terms.  The Seller retained the deposit.  The Buyer claimed the return of the deposit and damages arising from the fraudulent misrepresentation of the Seller.  The matter went to the High Court and the judge determined that the Seller had either fraudulently misrepresented the situation or had been reckless as to whether the information provided was correct and therefore the Buyer was entitled to the return of the deposit and an award for deceit.

Chambers and Partners

The Clarkslegal team are commercial and good to work with. They get what our business needs and tell me what I need to hear.

It is important for sellers and their advisers to ensure that:

  • replies to enquiries are compiled with all necessary care and attention so that information which should be disclosed is disclosed and is not concealed or inadvertently omitted;
  • up to date replies to enquiries are provided to the buyer and the seller keeps the buyer informed of any change in circumstances that will affect the accuracy of the replies.  This is especially important where a sale becomes protracted or replies to standard enquiries prepared for an earlier buyer are issued to an alternative buyer at a later date;
  • Sellers should always respond to any request for clarification of replies provided or further supporting documentation to provide evidence of the information provided.

If you would like any assistance in connection with the sale and purchase of a property or have any query relating to an issue arising from pre-contract enquiries please contact our Commercial Property Team.

About this article

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 28 June 2017
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Costs budgeting – welcome clarity from the Court of Appeal

Costs budgeting is now a central part of civil litigation. The Court, lawyers and litigants are getting more comfortable with the process and it leads to much greater transparency and certainty.

art
  • 12 June 2017
  • IP and Commercial

How to protect copyright on your mobile app

As of March this year, Android users were able to choose between 2.8 million apps and Apple’s App Store remained the second-largest app store with 2.2 million available apps (https://www.statista.com). This is a vast market, and, whilst many, many mobile apps make little or no money for their developers, the odd one may just be gold dust.

art
  • 09 June 2017
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Letter of Intent – The Need to Know

This article considers some of the merits and potential pitfalls of proceeding with construction works under a Letter of Intent.

art
  • 08 June 2017
  • Commercial Real Estate

Break Clauses and Alienation: Leasing Business Premises

A large percentage of modern leases of business premises include break clauses and virtually all will include provisions restricting the assignment and underletting of the lease. A landlord will generally seek to control the exercise of a tenant’s break and the tenant’s right to assign or underlet its premises as far as possible without damaging any future rent review on the grounds that the lease contains onerous conditions.

art
  • 08 June 2017
  • Commercial Real Estate

1954 Act Protection – Is it worthwhile?

Members of the Real Estate Team at Clarkslegal are often asked by clients whether a lease that has the protection of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 is more valuable than a lease which does not have the benefit of such protection.

art
  • 02 June 2017
  • Employment

“Mini” strike exposes major pension issues

In April workers at BMW’s UK plants started a wave of one day strikes, halting the output of the iconic Mini. This is the first ever walkout by staff at these sites and the cause was BMW’s plan to close a defined-benefit pension scheme and replace it with a contribution-based scheme, a move the Unite union believe will cost workers up to £160,000 in lost income.