| Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Decided | 29 June 1993 |
| Citations | [1994] 1 WLR 327; [1993] 4 All ER 961; Times, 30 July 1993; Independent, 6 August 1993; Guardian, 13 August 1993 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Mann LJ and Peter Gibson LJ |
| Keywords | |
| lockout agreement, contract for sale of land | |
Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 327 is an English contract law case, which confirmed the enforceability of lockout agreements.
In Parsonage Lane, Chelsworth, Suffolk, is a residence known as "The Cottage". PHH Asset Management Ltd were undisclosed agents of mortgagees, who were selling The Cottage for £205,000. Mr Pitt and Miss Buckle put in competing bids. Mr Pitt bid £200,000, which PHH accepted 'subject to contract'. Miss Buckle then increased her bid to £210,000. PHH withdrew its acceptance of Mr Pitt.
Mr Pitt was invited to increase his offer but declined as he didn't want to enter a bidding war. The Sales Agent subsequently invited the two parties to submit sealed bids to which Mr Pitt agreed provided were he to submit the successful bid then the vendor would not consider further offers. This is known as a "lock-out agreement" with Mr Pitt ready, willing and able to proceed to completion of the purchase within a 2-week period on receipt of the draft contract. Mr Pitt submitted the highest of the sealed bids and believed PHH Asset Management Ltd on behalf of the vendor were contractually committed to sell to him. Miss Buckle subsequently increased her offer which the vendor accepted. Mr Pitt withdrew from the process as he believed the vendor had reneged on the agreement, the "lock-out agreement" and took legal action to recover his costs.
Peter Gibson LJ held there was a consideration. First, Mr Pitt had agreed to not apply for an injunction. Even though the claim may not have worked, PHH was freed from the 'nuisance value' of defending the claim. Second, he had agreed not to make a nuisance with Miss Buckle. Third, the promise to proceed within two weeks was considered. Mann LJ agreed and Sir Thomas Bingham MR gave the following judgment.
For very many people their first and closest contact with the law is when they come to buy or sell a house. They frequently find it a profoundly depressing and frustrating experience. The vendor puts his house on the market. He receives an offer which is probably less than his asking price. He agonises over whether to accept or hold out for more. He decides to accept, perhaps after negotiating some increase. A deal is struck. Hands are shaken. The vendor celebrates, relaxes, makes plans for his own move and takes his house off the market. Then he hears that the purchaser who was formerly pleading with him to accept his offer has decided not to proceed. No explanation is given, no apology made. The vendor has to embark on the whole dreary process of putting his house on the market all over again.
For the purchaser the process is, if anything, worse. After a series of futile visits to unsuitable houses he eventually finds the house of his dreams. He makes an offer, perhaps at the asking price, perhaps at what the agent tells him the vendor is likely to accept. The offer is accepted. A deal is done. The purchaser instructs solicitors to act. He perhaps commissions an architect to plan alterations. He makes arrangements to borrow money. He puts his own house on the market. He makes arrangements to move. He then learns that the vendor has decided to sell to someone else, perhaps for the price already offered and accepted, perhaps for an increased price achieved by a covert, unofficial auction. Again, no explanation, no apology. The vendor is able to indulge his self-interest, even his whims, without exposing himself to any legal penalty.
The reasons why purchaser and vendor can act in this apparently unprincipled manner are to be found in two legal rules of long standing: first, the rule that contracts for the sale and purchase of land must be evidenced (or now made) in writing; secondly, the rule that terms agreed subject to contract do not give rise to a binding contract. These rules are deeply imbedded in statute and authority. They make possible the behaviour I have described, but the validity and merits of those rules are not, and could not be, the subject of challenge in this appeal.
For the purchaser there is, however, one means of protection: to make an independent agreement by which the vendor agrees for a clear specified period not to deal with anyone other than that purchaser. The effect is to give that purchaser a clear run for the period in question. The vendor does not agree to sell to that purchaser, such an agreement would be covered by section 2 of the Act of 1989, but he does give a negative undertaking that he will not for the given period deal with anyone else. That, I am quite satisfied, is what happened here, as the judge rightly held. The vendor and the prospective purchaser made what has come to be called a "lock-out agreement". That was a contract binding on them both. The vendor broke it. He is liable to the prospective purchaser for damages which remain to be assessed. I would dismiss the appeal.
An end-user license agreement or EULA is a legal contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user.
An auction is usually a process of buying and selling goods or services by offering them up for bids, taking bids, and then selling the item to the highest bidder or buying the item from the lowest bidder. Some exceptions to this definition exist and are described in the section about different types. The branch of economic theory dealing with auction types and participants' behavior in auctions is called auction theory.
Right of first refusal is a contractual right that gives its holder the option to enter a business transaction with the owner of something, according to specified terms, before the owner is entitled to enter into that transaction with a third party. A first refusal right must have at least three parties: the owner, the third party or buyer, and the option holder. In general, the owner must make the same offer to the option holder before making the offer to the buyer. The right of first refusal is similar in concept to a call option.
Gazumping occurs when a seller accepts a verbal offer on the property from one potential buyer, but then accepts a higher offer from someone else. It can also refer to the seller raising the asking price or asking for more money at the last minute, after previously verbally agreeing to a lower one. In either case, the original buyer is left in a bad situation, and either has to offer a higher price or lose the purchase. The term gazumping is most commonly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland, although similar practices can be found in some other jurisdictions.
Anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach is a concept in the law of contracts which describes words or conduct by a contracting party that evinces an intention not to perform or not to be bound by provisions of the agreement that require performance in the future.
In economics, a price mechanism is the manner in which the profits of goods or services affects the supply and demand of goods and services, principally by the price elasticity of demand. A price mechanism affects both buyer and seller who negotiate prices. A price mechanism, part of a market system, comprises various ways to match up buyers and sellers.
Offer and acceptance are generally recognized as essential requirements for the formation of a contract. Analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.
A mini-tender offer is an offer to acquire a company's shares directly from current investors in an amount less than 5% of issued stock. In the United States, the advantage is that it does not required all the disclosures required for larger tender offers and the relevant filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission though they remain subject to the anti-fraud provisions. This saves a lot of time and effort for the buyer and seller of the shares but increases the risks for the buyer as they do not have all the relevant disclosure that would normally be provided in a full tender offer.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 is an English contract law case. In it, Blackburn J set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct when entering into a contract. The case regarded a mistake made by Mr. Hughes, a horse trainer, who bought a quantity of oats that were the same as a sample he had been shown. However, Hughes had misidentified the kind of oats: his horse could not eat them, and he refused to pay for them. Smith, the oat supplier, sued for Hughes to complete the sale as agreed. The court sided with Smith, as he provided the oats Hughes agreed to buy. That Hughes made a mistake was his own fault, as he had not been misled by Smith. Since Smith had made no fault, there was no mutual mistake, and the sale contract was still valid.
Harvey v Facey [1893], is a contract law case decided by the United Kingdom Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica. In 1893 the Privy Council held final legal jurisdiction over most of the British Caribbean n. Its importance in case law is that it defined the difference between an offer and supply of information. The Privy Council held that indication of lowest acceptable price does not constitute an offer to sell. Rather, it is considered a response to a request for information, specifically a "precise answer to a precise question" about the lowest acceptable price which the seller would consider.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Gibson v Manchester City Council[1979] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case in which the House of Lords strongly reasserted that agreement only exists when there is a clear offer mirrored by a clear acceptance.
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 666 is an English contract law case which established that a contract can be formed by the conduct of the parties.
Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1977] is an English contract law case, concerning unilateral contracts, and when embarking on the performance of an act for which an offer is open, at what point the offer may be withdrawn. In particular, Goff LJ observed that there would be a duty to not prevent full performance of terms in a unilateral offer, once performance had begun.
The bundling of Microsoft Windows is the installation of Microsoft Windows in computers before their purchase. Microsoft encourages original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of personal computers to include Windows licenses with their products, and agreements between Microsoft and OEMs have undergone antitrust scrutiny. Users opposed to the bundling of Microsoft Windows, including Linux users, have sought refunds for Windows licenses, arguing that the Windows end-user license agreement entitles them to return unused Windows licenses for a cash refund. Although some customers have successfully obtained payments, others have been less successful.
Dimmock v Hallett (1866–67) LR 2 Ch App 21 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.
Hart v O'Connor [1985] UKPC 1 is an important case in New Zealand, also relevant for English contract law, regarding mental capacity to enter into contract as well as regarding unconscionable bargains, which made it as far as the Privy Council.
The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.
Powierza v Daley [1985] 1 NZLR 558 is an important New Zealand case involving where an inquiry about an offer, is just that, or whether instead it is a counteroffer. The legal distinction between the two is important, as an "inquiry" still leaves the original offer live, whereas a "counteroffer" cancels the previous offer.
Wells v Devani [2019] UKSC 4 is an English contract law case, concerning agreements to agree.