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


Managing procurement risks and challenges Exeter office, 1st Floor, The Mount, 72 Paris Street, Exeter, EX1 2JY

Have you ever received a letter challenging a regulated procurement procedure? Has your authority ever had proceedings issued against it for breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015? This all day workshop is designed to give you the confidence to understand the pressure points in procurement processes and how they can give rise to risk.

View event


Public sector planning club Nottingham office

We will be covering planning performance agreements, expert evidence in planning inquiries and certificates of lawful use.

View event

focus on...

Upcoming webinars

Local authority acquisition and disposal of land

Our speakers will cover commercial and public law considerations in relation to local authority acquisition and disposal of land.


Legal updates

Public matters - June 2019

This month includes procurement, net-zero emissions, judicial review, fixed recoverable costs, construction contracts, austerity and political uncertainty, the UK companies register, and the Modern Slavery Act.


Legal updates

Case update: abandoning a public procurement process

In the case of Amey Highways Ltd v West Sussex County Council, the High Court considered whether it was lawful for a contracting authority to abandon a procurement process and whether that decision extinguished a bidder’s accrued causes of action.


Legal updates

Extending the scope of fixed recoverable costs: Ministry of Justice consultation

In March 2019, the Ministry of Justice launched a formal consultation (which came to an end on 6 June 2019) aimed at extending the use of fixed recoverable costs in civil claims.


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