In the case of [ case ], it was held that the typing or printing of a name does not constitute a signature. In this case, the purchaser prepared a contract for the seller to sign, which detailed the names of the parties and also identified the land to be sold ‘on the enclosed plan’. The seller signed the plan but not the contract document, and the purchaser signed both. The Court of Appeal held that the requirements of LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 had not been complied with, as it viewed the plan as being separate from the contract; the contract was the document which incorporated the plan, not vice versa. The purchaser could also not rely on the fact that the parties’ names were printed on the contract to constitute a ‘signature’ for the purposes of the Act.
Answer
Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
Tags
#estates #freehold #land #law
Question
In the case of [ case ], it was held that the typing or printing of a name does not constitute a signature. In this case, the purchaser prepared a contract for the seller to sign, which detailed the names of the parties and also identified the land to be sold ‘on the enclosed plan’. The seller signed the plan but not the contract document, and the purchaser signed both. The Court of Appeal held that the requirements of LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 had not been complied with, as it viewed the plan as being separate from the contract; the contract was the document which incorporated the plan, not vice versa. The purchaser could also not rely on the fact that the parties’ names were printed on the contract to constitute a ‘signature’ for the purposes of the Act.
Answer
?
Tags
#estates #freehold #land #law
Question
In the case of [ case ], it was held that the typing or printing of a name does not constitute a signature. In this case, the purchaser prepared a contract for the seller to sign, which detailed the names of the parties and also identified the land to be sold ‘on the enclosed plan’. The seller signed the plan but not the contract document, and the purchaser signed both. The Court of Appeal held that the requirements of LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 had not been complied with, as it viewed the plan as being separate from the contract; the contract was the document which incorporated the plan, not vice versa. The purchaser could also not rely on the fact that the parties’ names were printed on the contract to constitute a ‘signature’ for the purposes of the Act.
Answer
Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In the case of Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567, it was held that the typing or printing of a name does not constitute a signature. In this case, the purchaser prepared a contract for the seller to sign, which detailed the names of
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.