Memorandum: parties must be sufficiently identified

In Carr v Lynch ([1900] 1 Ch. 613) J was the tenant of a pub. The landlord, L, agreed to grant an extension of the lease and wrote a letter to him confirming the essential terms of the extension but without naming the tenant. The letter began:

‘Dear Sir, –

In consideration of you having this day paid me the sum of 50l. (fifty pounds) I hereby agree …’.

L invoked the Statute of Frauds (the same as section 3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) and argued that he was not bound by the agreement. He failed. Although the tenant had not been named, he was sufficiently identified as the person who had paid the fifty pounds. There was no dispute as to who had paid the money.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: