Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd
An option to buy land is validly exercised by a notice signed only by the grantee, because section 2 applies to the grant of the option, not to its exercise.
Facts
The vendor granted Glencrown an option to buy a property, in a written agreement signed by both parties which complied with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Glencrown exercised the option by a letter signed only on its own behalf, but then failed to complete the purchase. The vendor sued Glencrown's guarantor, who argued that the exercise of the option was a contract for the sale of land that had to be signed by both parties, and was therefore void.
Legal principle
Hoffmann J held that the option had been validly exercised. He said that an option is not an offer or a conditional contract in the strict sense, but a relationship that is unique to options, under which the grantee can bind the grantor by exercising it. The contract for the sale of land, for the purposes of section 2, was the grant of the option, which had been in a single document signed by both parties. The notice exercising the option did not itself have to comply with section 2.
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
- Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
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.
