Sign On The Dotted Line - Subject To Contract

Published date14 December 2020
Subject MatterCorporate/Commercial Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Contracts and Commercial Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
Law FirmHill Dickinson
AuthorMs Moya Clifford

In the recent case of Joanne Properties Ltd -v- Moneything Capital Ltd and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1541, the Court of Appeal has reconfirmed the position on documents marked subject to contract during negotiations. It was confirmed that once parties have stated to negotiate on a 'subject to contract' basis, the courts will not assume that they have changed their overall negotiating stance and agreed a contract, unless there is express agreement to do so or that is the necessary implication from their words or conduct.

Facts

The claimant/appellant (JPL) commenced proceedings against the respondents (Moneything) to set aside a loan agreement and charge over a property in Wandsworth, and for an injunction to prevent Moneything realising its security. The parties compromised the proceedings by agreeing that the property could be sold and an order made for distribution of the proceeds (some '140,000). An issue then arose as to whether they had reached a further binding agreement about how a ring-fenced sum should be allocated between them - JPL having changed solicitors in the interim. Their solicitors' correspondence negotiating all this had been conducted 'subject to contract' and proceeded through various iterations with a draft consent order being circulated, purportedly containing agreed terms undercover of a letter marked 'subject to contract'. The new solicitors did not confirm the draft consent order sent over by Moneything's solicitor, who then applied to the court for an order in the terms of the draft order. The new solicitors argued that there had been no binding settlement because all the negotiations had been conducted 'subject to contract'.

At first instance, the judge held that a binding contract had been made.

Findings

Allowing JPL's appeal, the Court of Appeal has held that parties' solicitors' written communications did not establish a binding contract for settlement of a dispute. Where negotiations were stated as 'subject to contract', there could be no binding agreement until a formal contract was made. The case provides a useful reminder of the principles applying to the concept of 'subject to contract'.

The Court of Appeal clarified that there was undoubtedly no express agreement between the parties that the 'subject to contract' qualification should be withdrawn, and more importantly that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT