A homeowner has been interested in buying a strip of his neighbour's garden that measures 10 feet in width and 100 feet in length for a number of years. The neighbour has finally agreed to sell it orally. The homeowner has instructed a solicitor to handle the sale, but the neighbour is now refusing to sell. The homeowner has informed the solicitor that the neighbour's gardener was present when the agreement was made and can act as a witness.
What is the legal position in this case?
A homeowner has been interested in buying a strip of his neighbour's garden that measures 10 feet in width and 100 feet in length for a number of years. The neighbour has finally agreed to sell it orally. The homeowner has instructed a solicitor to handle the sale, but the neighbour is now refusing to sell. The homeowner has informed the solicitor that the neighbour's gardener was present when the agreement was made and can act as a witness.
What is the legal position in this case?
The homeowner cannot successfully sue the neighbour for breach of contract regardless of the gardener's corroboration.
(B) The homeowner cannot sue the neighbour for breach of contract, even if the gardener confirms the contract's terms. This is because, according to section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, a contract for the sale of land must be in writing to be valid.
Both (A) and (C) are incorrect because the gardener's corroboration does not address the issue. Even if the contract were valid, a breach of the land sale contract would entitle the homeowner to either damages or specific performance.
Option (D) is also incorrect as the oral contract is voidable, and the neighbour can use the writing requirement to defeat the homeowner's claim.
Option (E) is inaccurate as it suggests that both parties have equal power to enforce the contract. In reality, an oral contract is unenforceable against either party, and there is no such mutuality rule.