It has been suggested that the landlord could comply with the 1989 Act by signifying his acceptance on the offer document itself. But query whether the tenant could claim that he had not put his signature to a contract as such. Readers’ views on this would be most welcome.
Q Under the terms of their leases, a number of our tenants have to give us first refusal at their selling price before they can assign their interests. However, on our understanding of Bircham & Co Nominees (No 2) Ltd v Worrell Holdings Ltd [2001] 47 EG 149, no binding contract will come into existence if we simply write back accepting an offer made in accordance with the provision in question. Is this correct?
A In most cases, yes, the reason being that the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 requires the signature of each party to a single document. It would be otherwise if, as a matter of interpretation, the right of pre-emption had created an option exercisable by the landlord, but that would not be so if the tenant could withdraw his offer without committing a breach of contract: cf Pritchard v Briggs [1980] 1 All ER 294.
It has been suggested that the landlord could comply with the 1989 Act by signifying his acceptance on the offer document itself. But query whether the tenant could claim that he had not put his signature to a contract as such. Readers’ views on this would be most welcome.
