BCL Law Notes > Oxford BCL Law Notes > Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

Target Holdings V. Redfern Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 4 page long Target Holdings V. Redfern notes, which we sell as part of the Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains (approximately) 523 pages of notes across 153 different documents.

Learn more about our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.

Target Holdings V. Redfern Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

TARGET HOLDINGS V. REDFERNS

FACTS Prior to 15 May 1989 two adjoining plots of freehold land in Birmingham, together known as 60-64, Great Hampton Street, Hockley ('the property') were owned by Mirage Properties Ltd. ('Mirage'). On 15 May 1989 Mirage agreed, subject to contract, to sell the property to Crowngate Developments Ltd. ('Crowngate') at a price of £775,000. A firm of solicitors, the defendants Redferns, acted as Crowngate's solicitors. On 9 June 1989 the plaintiff, Target Holdings Ltd. ('Target'), received two completed loan application forms signed by a Mr. Kohli on behalf of Crowngate. The applications were for loans totalling £1,706,000 and stated the purchase price of the property to be £2m. The application gave no particulars of the vendor. Target was never told that Crowngate had agreed to buy the property for £775,000. The application was supported by a professional valuation of the property at £2m. made by the second defendant, Alexander Stevens and Co. Ltd. Crowngate's scheme was that Mirage would sell the property to a Jersey company, Panther Ltd. ('Panther'), for £775,000; Panther would then sell it to an English company, Kohli & Co. Ltd. ('Kohli and Co.') for £1,250,000; and Kohli & Co. was then to sell the property on to Crowngate for £2m., being the price at which Target believed Crowngate was purchasing the property. On 23 June 1989 Referns were instructed by Target to act for them. On 28 June 1989 Target transferred £1,525,000 to Redferns without giving any express instructions to Redferns as to its release. It is common ground that Redferns had implied authority to pay the money to or to the order of Crowngate when the property had been conveyed to Crowngate and Crowngate had executed charges in Target's favour. On 29 June, without seeking Target's consent, Mr. Bundy transferred £1,250,000 (namely the sum payable on the purchase by Kohli & Co. from Panther) to Panther, the bank account of which was controlled by its directors. Contracts for the sale of the property to Panther were signed by Mirage on 30 June, on which date Mirage also executed transfers to Panther. Also on that date Mr. Bundy instructed the directors of Reads to pay from Panther's bank account sums totalling
£1,072,787.42, of which the sum of £772,787.42 was to be paid to Mirage (being the sum due on completion. The contracts of sale to Kohli & Co. and to Crowngate were probably signed by those companies by 5 July. The legal charge of

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.

Related Commercial Remedies Bcl Samples: