Which statement about the validity of a contract for sale under s.2 LPA 1989 is correct?

• A. It must be in writing only
• B. It must be in writing and signed by both parties, incorporating all terms
• C. It can be oral but witnessed
• D. It can be partly written/partly oral

Answer: (B)

For a contract involving the sale of land, certainty and enforceability come from the contract being in writing, signed, and complete. Under s2 of the Law of Property Act 1989, a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land must be in writing, must be signed by the party to be charged, and must contain all the terms or refer to a document that contains all the terms. This setup prevents gaps that could lead to disputes about what was agreed and ensures that both sides have clearly committed to the same terms.

That’s why the best choice is that the contract must be in writing and signed by both parties, incorporating all terms. The requirement to be in writing and to include all terms (or incorporate a document with them) eliminates reliance on oral agreements and ensures there is a complete, binding agreement. It is not acceptable for a contract to be only partly written or to be purely oral, even if witnessed, because that would fail the statutory writing and completeness requirements.