Discussion in 'The Buying/Selling Process' started by Mamaof3, 22nd Jun, 2015.
Ooh, is this as exemplified by Walton Stores v Maher?
And many others.
Getting back to the OP's issue - is it really subject to valuation or is it an unconditional contract? Sounds more like the buyer's finance is conditional (the condition that the buyer achieved finance is satisfied) however valuation finance prior to completion is not a factor in determining whether or not the contract of sale is unconditional.
The principle of estoppel as demonstrated in Walton v Maher won't come into it as the contract has been agreed and signed by both parties (unlike Walton who had not signed, time was not of the essence and neither party was under the impression that the other wouldn't proceed until shortly prior to completion of the building - a similarity with Walton v Maher but not critical).
My reading of this situation is that the contract was conditional, but the condition having been previously satisfied when they got an approval, is now unconditional. The condition isn't re-enlivened if his finance falls through after the condition has been satisfied.
That seems like a very narrow reading of Walton Stores v Maher; it wasn't just about a signed agreement vs a not signed agreement, it is authority for the much broader doctrine of equitable estoppel.
In any case, even if it were so narrowly construed, the verbal agreement to vary - i.e. We'll release you if you can provide proof of job termination - is likely to be viewed as the termination of the first contract and creation of a new contract (per Tallerman), and we're back to the position that there's been an agreement to substitute a new contract with that condition in it, that hasn't been signed, and Walton Stores v Maher thus becomes applicable again.
Separate names with a comma.