It looks as if there's a vires point: the council says that they only had *power* to sell at market value. So presumably the argument will be that the contract was invalid as ultra vires. The sort of point for which one wants a decently thick metal hat of some sort.


Harrington Matthew P. writes:

> Of course, we don’t have the precise statement of claim yet, but the letter references one in “unjust enrichment.” Surely, the juristic reason is a contract of sale. How, then, could it go forward on that basis?
>
> Aren’t they limited to an uphill battle on the question of unilateral mistake? The council hired an independent surveyor before completing the sale. So, both the buyer and seller (through its agent) were aware of the nature of the premises.
>
> I get the argument that they had no authority to make a sale at lower than market value, but surely the surveyor’s report would have established or supported the value for which the transfer was made.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Matthew P Harrington
> Professeur
> Faculté de droit
> Université de Montréal
> www.commonlaw.umontreal.ca
> ----------------------------------
>
> From: Tettenborn A.M.<mailto:a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>
> Sent: February 15, 2019 9:28 AM
> To: obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>
> Subject: Fwd: [AALS-KS] UK mistake case- govt sold apt thinking it only a one-bedroom when was two
>
>
> This should keep a few lawyers active, if it comes to court.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [AALS-KS] UK mistake case- govt sold apt thinking it only a one-bedroom when was two
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:05:09 +0000
> From: Tadas Klimas <000001569ee53a95-dmarc-request@LISTS.UMN.EDU><mailto:000001569ee53a95-dmarc-request@LISTS.UMN.EDU>
> Reply-To: Tadas Klimas <tadasklimas@YAHOO.COM><mailto:tadasklimas@YAHOO.COM>
> To: AALSCONTRACTS@LISTS.UMN.EDU<mailto:AALSCONTRACTS@LISTS.UMN.EDU>
>
>
> Man told to pay £360,000 or lose flat after council undercharged him<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708399/Homeowner-told-pay-360-000-lose-flat-council-undercharged-him.html>
>
> <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708399/Homeowner-told-pay-360-000-lose-flat-council-undercharged-him.html>
>
>
>
>
>
> [https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/dailymail.png]
> Man told to pay £360,000 or lose flat after council undercharged him
>
> Antony Zomparelli, 54, bought his two-bed flat from Islington Borough Council for £340,000 in 2014 but the counc...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________ Public Replies: AALSCONTRACTS@LISTS.UMN.EDU<mailto:AALSCONTRACTS@LISTS.UMN.EDU> Private replies: See "From" in message header To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe aalscontracts" to LISTSERV@LISTS.UMN.EDU<mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.UMN.EDU> Other inquiries about the list: AALSCONTRACTS-Request@LISTS.UMN.EDU<mailto:AALSCONTRACTS-Request@LISTS.UMN.EDU>
>
> --


--
Paul Stanley QC
Essex Court Chambers
24 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London WC2A 3EG
T +44 20 7813 8000
D +44 20 7147 7340

This message and its attachments are confidential. They may also be legally privileged. If you think you may have received the message in error, please delete it without reading it and let me know you have done so.

---

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 

---