Why we exist

We at Bogun Towers are often asked why it is that he needs to retain such a large journalistic team to write this august publication and why he cannot just get off his lazy arse and write his own diary.

We share with you below a letter written by him and recently published by the Law Society Gazette. We trust that the utter tedium of said letter will explain why it is that he needs us to make his life sound interesting.

Dear Sir

I refer to the unfortunate question raised in Calvert Solicitors' letter, asking if the current recession is an exceptional circumstance that would allow the return of a deposit under section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (see [2008] Gazette, 13 November, 13).

I use the word “unfortunate” because I think the answer must be “no” following the clear guidance of the Court of Appeal in the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd -v- Park Lane Estates Limited and another ([2008] EWCA Civ 1227), which was handed down on 11 November 2008, a mere two days before the publication of Calvert’s letter.

Carnwath LJ delivered the only judgment of the court and carried out a thorough review of the authorities in this area. He concluded that the jurisdiction is an extremely narrow one to reflect the fact that a deposit is an "earnest for performance". In essence the jurisdiction is unlikely to be exercised save where the vendor has acted unconscionably - or at least somewhat shadily.

It is apparent therefore that the jurisdiction is simply not there to rescue Calvert's clients from bearing the risk of the property market. Indeed, assuming their clients do not proceed, not only will they forfeit the deposit but they will also be liable in damages for the difference between the agreed price and the current market price - less the deposit - and any other consequential costs.

Yours faithfully