High Court refuses to order specific performance of an option agreement, but grants a declaration that the plaintiff exercised an option to purchase premises in the second year of the agreement for the price or consideration of €725,000, on the grounds that: the Court was not satisfied that the option agreement was exercised in the first year of the agreement as the parties conducted themselves as if negotiations in respect of as number of matters were ongoing, and the first time when a court would, with any degree of certainty, find the option had been exercised is in the plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter in the second year of the option agreement.
Specific performance – adjourned due to Covid-19 - contract for the exercise of an option agreement- price or consideration of €625,000 - Statement of Claim – Defence – documentation - exercise of the option - tenancy agreement - ‘without prejudice’ meeting - no particulars were raised and no discovery sought - sub-Leasing the premise - Re-Possession – Court not satisfied that there was a verbal exercise of the option by the plaintiff at the meeting - evidence amounts to a potential discussion of the issue, but no evidence that satisfies this Court that the exercise in fact took place - negotiations regarding the tenancy continued apace - not satisfied that person had a contract of agency on that day - without prejudice correspondence – granting of the option imposes no obligation on the purchaser and an obligation on the vendor which is contingent on the exercise of the option granting of the option imposes no obligation on the purchaser and an obligation on the vendor which is contingent on the exercise of the option - all parties to this litigation had the benefit of legal advice throughout - no condition precedent or any other requirement or obligation requiring compliance with any other terms of the tenancy agreement prior to the exercise of the option – Court not satisfied on the evidence or the submissions advanced that any determination of what the document refers to as the ‘letting’ refers also to the option agreement thereby rendering it null and void – laches - conduct of the plaintiff - conducted themselves, as if negotiations in respect of as number of matters were ongoing - option has been exercised within the second year of the agreement of 24 August 2015, which pursuant to clause 10 is for a consideration of €725,000 – first time when a court would, with any degree of certainty find the option had been exercised is in the plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter of 17th October 2016, clearly addressed to the defendants solicitors -