Return of deposits

Explores case law illustrating the circumstances in which the courts are likely to order the return of a deposit in the event of a buyer's default. Notes the unwillingness of the courts to apply the rule on penalties to deposits and discusses the court's discretion under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.49(2) to order repayment. Focuses on the Chancery Division ruling in Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd giving guidance on the circumstances in which the discretion under s.49(2) should be exercised.

Returning to deposits...

Examines the Court of Appeal ruling in Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd on whether the court should exercise its discretion to return a deposit paid under a contract for the sale of a property where, despite the claimant having defaulted on its purchase, the owner obtained a higher price than would have been paid by the claimant when it subsequently sold the property to a third party. Considers the need for special or exceptional circumstances to be present to override the rule that deposits were to be forfeited upon the purchaser's default.

Comparative analysis of corporate risk management practices in Croatian and Slovenian companies

The paper explores differences as well as commonalities in corporate risk management practices and risk exposures in the large non-financial Slovenian and Croatian companies. Comparative analysis of survey results have revealed that the majority of analysed companies in both Croatia and Slovenia are using some form of risk management to manage interest-rate, foreign exchange, or commodity price risk. Regarding the intensity of influence of financial risks on the performance of the analysed companies, the results have shown that the price risk has the highest influence among the Slovenian as well as the Croatian companies. Croatian companies are more affected by currency risk than the Slovenian companies, while the interest-rate risk has been ranged as less important in comparison with commodity price and currency risks. The survey’s results have clearly indicated that Croatian and Slovenian non-financial companies manage financial risks primarily with simple risk management instruments such as natural hedging. In the case of derivatives use, forwards and swaps are by far the most important instruments in both countries, but futures as representatives of standardised derivatives and structured derivatives are more important in the Slovenian than in the Croatian companies.