The Gazette 1974

is not obtained within that period, the contract would terminate, save that £100 would be deducted for each month's delay beyond date of determination. The de- posit of £2,000 was paid to Ansbacher in the joint names of the Solicitors for the Vendor and the Pur- chaser, with provision for a further payment of £2,000 if planning permission is obtained within 8 months of the signing of the contract. The closing is to take place within two months of the purchaser receiving notifica- tion that full planning permission has been granted, and the balance of £57,360 is to be paid in respect of the property which is then to be handed over. The balance of the property and of the purchase money is to be handed over within six months of that date. In August 1973 solicitors for defendants wrote to plaintiffs that full planning permission had not yet been obtained but that the purchaser was nevertheless prepared to treat the contract as absolute, and that completion should take place within two months from then. The plaintiff's solicitors refused to accept these terms, and pleaded that the contract had determined, as 17 months had elapsed from signature. Accordingly the plaintiff issued a Summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874 to determine this. Per Kenny J. "On principle it seems to me that when a clause in a contract (whether it is a condition or a term) is inserted solely for the benefit of one party, and is severable from the other clauses when the other party on completion will get everything that he contracted for, then the party for whose benefit the clause was inserted may waive performance of the clause, and insist on completion, despite the non-per- formance of the condition or term." The provision that the planning permission was to be obtained by the defendant indicated that he was the person whom the parties contemplated would apply for it, who would prepare the necessary plans, and would undertake the development. If the defendant completes the sale the plaintiff gets everything she stipulated for, because her interest is in getting payment of the pur- chase money. The contract was void for uncertainty, because the date for completion was to be calculated by reference to the grant of full planning permission, and could not be determined otherwise. With doubt Kenny J. held that the defendant's offer to complete despite the absence of planning permission made part of the contract severable. The severable clauses were solely for the benefit of the defendant who may waive them, and insist on completion. Accordingly the contract did not determine and the summons must be dismissed. [Nora Healy v. Daniel Healy; Kenny J.; unreported; 3 December 1973] Law Ruling Bailie Albert Long said after the decision: "We should not allow ourselves to be panicked by what to me are publicity statements by Lord Cameron." As the law stands police can stop and search people thought to be carrying firearms, drugs, poaching equip- ment or stolen goods, but they cannot search them for offensive weapons. Balie Gerald McGrath, senior magistrate, said that the use of weapons in crimes was very much on the increase and the magistrates would be failing in their duty if they did not take account of what Lord Cameron had said.

ls that planning permission was granted upon evidence n °t contained in the Report, in violation of the plaintiff's right to have tests carried out on his own account if J e cessary. The plaintiff claims that the order of 21 September 1971 is ultra vires inasmuch as it disregards He principles of constitutional and natural justice. The defendants had the audacity to contend that, as He plaintiff was not a party to the hearing by the Hspector, he could not maintain this action. In view of He fact that the plaintiff had taken such an active part ' n the proceedings from the start, his position at the f a r i ng was indistinguishable from that of a defendant ln a civil proceeding who prevented a plaintiff from ^covering in the action. Accordingly Mr. Law's parti- cipation in these event" and his interest as a resident ' n preventing septic tanks from being used near his H>use, gives him a legal right to have that interest Protected. It was also contended by the defendants that the Plaintiff has no legal right to sue, for the purpose of es tablishing that the planning authority has erred in a matter of legal procedure, as the right to enforce Provisions of the planning legislation is exclusively jested in the planning authority. But here the plaintiff ° a s shown a right in law springing from the appeal hearing procedure, which he says has been infringed by He wrongful act of the Council in granting permission a . nd this has damaged him. The plaintiff has a perfect to make this claim. The Minister's decision must have been based not ° n jy on the report but also on additional material. The Minister's decision is accordingly vitiated by irregul- ari ty. Accordingly the order of the County Council of H September 1971 is void. Costs awarded against both P e n d a n t s. . [Law v. Minister for Local Government and Tradi- tional Homes Ltd.; Deale J.; unreported; 27 May 1974.] 11 a Vendor and Purchaser contract, clauses which are for the benefit of one of the parties only, may be severed from the rest of the contract, and that party may waive performances and insist on com- pletion Plaintiff agrees to sell lands in Ballymorris, Bray, for M>7,350 in March 1972 to defendant and signs a Wr itten contract as prepared by the Law Society, but tie gate lodge was excluded. A deposit of only £2,000 paid and the completion was subject to the pur- chaser obtaining full planning permission for residential P^velopment of not less than 17 houses per acre within ' months of the contract. If the planning permission No Change in Search Glasgow magistrates yesterday refused to give the Mice powers to stop and search anyone suspected of Car rying an offensive weapon. By 8-5 the magistrates rejected the recommendation a joint sub-committee that they should seek a meet- Hg with the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss He advisability of amending the Prevention of Grime ^ ct > 1953, relating to the carrying of offensive weapons. This committee was formed following observations Hade at a sitting of Glasgow High Court by Lord ^ a meron some time ago. He said that in the vast Hajority of cases concerning assaults that came before tie courts there was a use of offensive weapons.

175