0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

the risks of 'accidentally' exchanging contracts

21 May 2019

This article is taken from May's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.

The recent case of Alexander Kuznetsov and London Borough of Camden serves as a reminder of the fundamental elements of a property sale contract and the risks of unintentionally exchanging contracts.

This case centres around the attempts by London Borough of Camden to acquire the long leasehold interest that Alexander Kuznetsov held in a property that the council was seeking to redevelop. The council had attempted to negotiate the purchase with Mr Kuznetsov for a number of years but eventually proceeded with a compulsory purchase order in order to acquire the property. Mr Kuznetsov claimed that an exchange of correspondence culminating in a letter from the council dated 16 February 2017 created a binding open contract for the purchase of the property.

The letter from the council set out a recommendation that Mr Kuznetsov obtained a Red Book valuation and that on receipt of the valuation the council “will be willing to purchase your property at that value and pay compensation and all reasonable expenses”. Mr Kuznetsov claims to have added to the bottom of the letter “Thank you! I accept your offer and will instruct a valuer, as requested” and then added his signature and date before sending it back to the council. The council denies ever having received the letter.

The council was initially successful in striking out the claim but Mr Kuznetsov sought leave to appeal and it is that appeal that was recently heard and reported on. One of the grounds of appeal concerned whether the exchange of correspondence amounted to a contract in accordance with Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) (the ‘1989 Act’).

Section 2 of the 1989 Act states: “2(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”

The judge believed that Mr Kuznetsov had a real prospect of establishing at a full trial that the letter dated 16 February 2017 as countersigned by him amounted to an open contract for the sale of his property and that contract complied with Section 2 of the 1989 Act. The letter set out the parties, identified the property, established a mechanism for calculating the price and was signed by both parties (allegedly, the council denies Mr Kuznetsov ever signed and returned the letter – but that is a matter for trial). This dispute will therefore go forward to a trial.

This case reminds us all of the need to be clear that negotiations are simply non-binding negotiations; that exchanges of letters can land parties in hot water if the intention of one of the parties is that a formal contract still needs to be drafted and negotiated. It certainly shows the benefit of marking letters with wording such as ‘subject to contract’ to make clear that further steps are required before parties become bound to purchase land. We will need to keep an eye out for the outcome of the trial.


Receive our latest government sector news

Choose the way you want to keep up to date with our latest updates and insights. Sign up to our monthly newsletter or join the conversation with our team on LinkedIn.

Sign up to receive updates >

Follow our LinkedIn showcase page >


training and events


Child Abuse Claims – Design your own Redress Schemes and Codes of Conduct seminar Manchester office

We are delighted to invite you to attend our next social care forum.

View event


Private sector development club Nottingham office

We are pleased to invite you to our next private sector development club. At this session we will guide you through a fictional development scenario – covering site acquisition, resolving title issues, negotiating a development agreement and the role of collateral warranties.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Public matters - February 2020

This month includes public procurement, planning, the Clean Air Bill, rent regulation, and in loco parentis in schools.


Legal updates

Local planning authorities may now agree to extend the time period for determining prior approval applications

On 31 January 2020 the High Court handed down judgment in Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 161 Admin


Legal updates

Should heading the ball be banned in football lessons?

It is an accepted fact that a school owes their pupils a duty to take reasonable care of their safety.


Legal updates

Social value in procurement

The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 extends public bodies’ thinking beyond the financial costs of a contract and makes them evaluate how the services they procure might improve the economic, social and environment wellbeing of an area.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up