Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson
A contract for the sale of land must be signed by both parties, and a party's name typed by the other party as addressee is not a signature.
Facts
Mrs Johnson agreed orally to sell land to Firstpost Homes. Firstpost's director prepared a letter, addressed to Firstpost and naming the company, which stated that Mrs Johnson agreed to sell the land shown on an enclosed plan at a stated price. Mrs Johnson signed the letter and the plan, and the director signed the plan, but not the letter. Mrs Johnson later died, and Firstpost sought to enforce the agreement against her estate.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that there was no valid contract under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Peter Gibson LJ said that the letter, which set out the terms, and the plan, which identified the land, together formed the contract document, but the plan was incorporated into the letter, so the letter was the main document that had to be signed. The typing of the purchaser's name as addressee of the letter was not a signature by the purchaser. Section 2 replaced the old law, and signature should be given its ordinary meaning, writing one's own name.
Related cases on contracts for land and proprietary estoppel
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
- Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463
- Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
- Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
