The fact that this transaction is not within the literal words of the definition does not, by itself, resolve the issue. In Chambers v. Pennyfarthing, we concluded that the application of Pt. 2 cannot be limited to transactions that can be brought within the literal words. The question which arises here is whether Pt. 2 applies to the sale of an entire subdivision or, as occurred here, a one-seventh interest in it. It will be convenient to refer to this sale as a “wholesale” one, to distinguish it from a “retail sale” by a developer to a purchaser of an individual lot. The sale in this case was by one developer to another for the purpose of enabling the development to be carried on to the point where retail sales could be effected. The sale of the interest was made before subdivision but included provision for the one-seventh interest of the purchaser being converted into ownership of 30 of the 207 lots which were intended to constitute the total “stock in trade” after completion of the subdivision process.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.