Millichamp v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1982 |
| Year | 1982 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
46 cases
-
Alexey Samarenko v Dawn Hill House Ltd
...So I hold that the construction of the contract for which the sellers contend is right." 17 The question of a deposit arose again in Millichamp v Jones [1982] 1 WLR 1422. The buyers were the holders of an option to buy land. The terms of the option provided for the payment of a deposit "[up......
-
Kramer v Arnold
...of a transaction that had already continued for over a year." " I would also follow (the English decision in Millichamp v. Jones [1983] 1 All ER 267) in holding that, in view of the lack of an exact measure of time in Clause 2 (vi), it was incumbent upon (Mr. Arnold) to notify (Mr. Kramer) ......
-
Seah Kiat Seng v Amtel Exports Pte Ltd
...three days later which was, however, rejected. In this regard, my attention was drawn to the English case of Millichamp & Ors v Jones [1983] 1 All ER 267, where the dispute was between close relatives. The relevant facts are as follows.In 1969 Mr William Millichamp, the plaintiffs` father, ......
-
Blackall v Blackall
...1 WLR 435. The contrary view namely that the obligation to pay a deposit was a term of the contract was taken in Millichamp -v- Jones [1983] 1 All ER 267 and in his judgment Warner J. reviewed the authorities in arriving at this conclusion. I prefer the view expressed by Warner J. and accor......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
EXERCISING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY BY WAY OF CHEQUE: WHAT IF THE CHEQUE IS DISHONOURED?
...2 SLR 342. 10 [1993] 3 SLR 498. 11 supra note 1. 12 supra note 2. 13 supra note 5. 14 supra note 6. 15 supra note 2 at page 317. 16 [1983] 1 All ER 267. 17 supra note 12, at p 274. 18 supra note 12. 19 supra note 2. 20 supra note 1. 21 supra note 2. 22 see for example, Tan Chong Keng v Lim ......