Solicitors usually agree on the method of settlement when the contract becomes unconditional. What happens when you have obtained an A & I from your out-of-town or overseas vendor client after agreeing to settle electronically, but the purchaser's solicitor subsequently advises you that he/she wishes to do a manual transaction instead?

Aside from this being professionally discourteous, the other party has strong grounds not to accede to such a request.

I believe that if the method by which settlement is to proceed has been agreed and one of the parties has acted on that, then the other party is essentially 'estopped' from changing their mind. The principles of both contract and estoppel apply to this scenario. The contract is an agreement between the solicitors on behalf of their clients and the consideration is either the deposit and/or settlement funds to be passed.

The estoppel argument requires that there be a representation with reliance upon that representation and a loss or detriment to the party who has relied on that representation.

If both parties have agreed to settle by e-dealing, then that is how the transaction must proceed.

The appropriate response to a party 'changing their mind' is that:

• the method of settlement had been agreed
• all documentation had been completed in accordance with that agreement
• they are 'ready willing and able' to settle as an e-dealing
• a failure for the purchaser to settle as an e-dealingwould mean the purchaser is in default
• the purchaser would be liable for default pursuant to the agreement for penalty interest etc.

Accordingly, careful assessment should be given at the outset as to the method of settlement. This is of course a temporary problem pending the mandatory date of 1 August 2007 for all Transfers to be conducted via e-dealing.

Duncan Terris