{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019485038274182326, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009046624913013222, 'mean_word_length': 4.775100401606426, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Another Chance for the Incomplete Land Dealing

It was apparent from the various questions posed by the line of cases on sec. 8 of the Land Law, 1969 that judicial interpretation was still required especially as to the contents needed for the "written document". Since our previous article was published, two further decisions of the Supreme Court have appeared directly involving this very subject. Both cases concerned receipts acknowledging payment of a minority of the proposed purchase price for an interest in land. In Kadry the name of the vendors was inaccurate and the standing of the signatory was not specified. More important, there was no mention of the time(s) for payment of the balance of the money nor as to responsibility for payment of taxes or outgoings (nor indeed any future arrangements at all). In an application to strike out the purchaser's claim for specific performance of the agreement, the vendors based their argument on the inadequacy of the receipt as the only written document. However, the Supreme Court held for the purchaser; not only were the doubts as to the identity of the vendor considered insubstantial but significantly, in the absence of any contrary intent, various statutes and regulations could be utilised to supply essential terms for the written document so that sec. 8 was satisfied—and such statutes and laws did not need to be specified therein. Sees. 9 and 21 of the Sale Law, 1968*