Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Charles Uren V. First National Home Finance Ltd. Notes

BCL Law Notes > Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Charles Uren V. First National Home Finance Ltd. document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

CHARLES UREN V. FIRST NATIONAL HOME FINANCE LTD. FACTS Mr Uren is one of many intending purchasers in a development of flats in Tenerife known as Santa Barbara. The development was being carried out at the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s. It was carried out by a company called Arrish Limited, a Manx company. Mr Uren agreed to acquire two flats, and he paid PS50,000 (in various instalments) to Arrish as part payment of the purchase price. A company in the same group as the defendant lent monies to Arrish for the purposes of the development, and there were many other purchasers. In July 1990, Arrish limited went insolvent and the lending bank appointed receivers. By way of enforcement of the security, there was a Spanish judicial auction - At the auction the development property was purchased by another Manx company called Pitchcott Limited ("Pitchcott"), a company owned and controlled by the First National group of which the defendant is part. The intending purchasers formed an action group, and contributed various sums to that group. Mr Uren himself contributed PS75,000 being the amount of the balance of the purchase price due on his flat. Over PS1.5m was raised. The purpose of the action group was to procure that the development got finished. The defendant is alleged to have encouraged the purchasers' association in this endeavour and to have indicated that it would make funding available to enable the purchasers to complete the development. In 1992 this action group came to an arrangement with the First National Group, using its fighting fund of PS1.54m. This money (or rather the bulk of it) was made available to a new company (incorporated in England) known as Santa Barbara Limited, which was intended to be a vehicle for completing the development. There was another judicial auction, and again the property was bought by a company controlled by (in essence being part of) the First National Group, namely Agosta 96. The purchase price was, apparently, rather less than the sums due and outstanding to the defendant bank... there was apparently a deal with another company, experienced in timeshare operations, known as LSI. That deal (it is assumed for present purposes) had two elements. The first was a sale at PS7m. That would be enough to repay the outstanding indebtedness. The second is said to arise on a collateral contract (not apparently documented, but which I am invited to assume for present purposes to exist) to the effect that LSI would introduce business to the defendant worth about
PS1m a year for the following 3 to 5 years. Paragraph 20 alleges that the claimant (along with the other purchasers) had lost his apartments and all the money that he had

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples