Option to Purchase in UK Law

I see no reason for reading the Article in that limited way. Transferring a share involves a series of steps, first an agreement to sell, then the execution of a deed of transfer and finally the registration of the transfer. Moreover the ordinary meaning of "transfer" is simply to hand over or part with something, and a shareholder who agrees to sell is parting with something. The context must determine in what sense the word is used.

What is required to put him, so far as money can, in the same position as if the contract had been performed? To my mind, it is a sum equal to the cost of hiring a similar car on similar terms as to the eventual option to purchase for £1. There is no reason whyone should not adopt as the figure of that cost what Mr. Tolly actually has to pay to the Company for the like hiring in the present case, to wit, £90 and £47.

The true distinction is between those cases where the mode of ascertaining the price is an essential term of the contract, and those cases where the mode of ascertainment, though indicated in the contract, is subsidiary and non-essential�see Fry on Specific Performance (6th Edition) paragraphs 360, 364.

On the same day as Step 1, the Captive Leasing Companies leased the cars pursuant to hybrid HP/lease agreements to dealership companies in the Pendragon Group ("the Dealerships"). Each of the Captive Leasing Companies entered into a "Vehicle Demonstrator Hire Agreement" (referred to as a hybrid lease) in favour of the Dealerships.

"The nature of the interest taken by the hirer under the agreement appears to me to be this: First, a right to retain possession of the chattel so long as she performed the conditions of the agreement. Secondly, an option to purchase the chattel exercisable by payment of the instalments provided for by the contract. [The third right was a right of reinstatement after default under a special provision of the contract.]

This hire purchase agreement was, at the material time, more analogous to a simple hiring than to a purchase. It had a contingent option to purchase of which the defendant might have availed himself in two years time but in September the defendant could, as a hirer, refuse to go on with the transaction since the plaintiffs, in spite of repeated requests, were still consistently refusing to honour their obligations.

The disclosure ordered by Walker J herein has revealed that since 2005 Howe Robinson has fixed around 125 vessels on Mr Salgaocar's instructions with Trustworth as charterers. Of those 43 fixtures 36 involved guarantees in the same form as in the present case namely by a single line in the charterparty. In January and February 2008 Howe Robinson concluded 15 other fixtures on Mr Salgaocar's instructions, three of which were guaranteed by SMI.