[2024] EWHC 3625 (TCC)

Mr Lomax does not accept that payment of the deposit was a condition precedent to the exercise of Option F.

Therefore, the exercise of the option was valid and, given that the Defendants have taken no steps to terminate the option, he is entitled to complete the purchase of Plot F. The Defendants’ refusal to pass title, therefore, amounts to a breach of contract.

Alternatively, the Defendants waived their right to the payment of the deposit by their failure to confirm how much of the Purchase Price was attributable to plot F and/or their solicitors’ failure to provide their client account details to Mr Lomax.

Mr Lomax’s case is that the Defendants only moved into the New Farmhouse in February 2019 and that, accordingly, he exercised Option F (on the second occasion) within the two-year Option Period.

Mr Lomax argues that, in the circumstances, the Defendants are in breach of contract and that he is entitled to specific performance along with damages for the delay which he has suffered in the completion of the transfer to him of Plot F.

For their part, the Defendants maintain that payment of the deposit was a condition precedent to the exercise of Option F.

They deny that their solicitors failed to provide their bank details to Mr Lomax and/or that they have waived their right to payment of the deposit.

The Defendants do not accept that they only moved into the New Farmhouse in February 2019. They say that they moved there in June 2018 and that Mr Lomax purported to exercise Option F on the second occasion out of time.