A and B jointly own property in equal shares. Buyer approaches A and B for purchase of property.
A and B know something of the linked transactions rules and decide that each should negotiate separately and independently for sale of their respective half share. A accepts that he may successfully complete on the sale of his share but that B may not. B likewise accepts that he may successfully complete on the sale of his share but that A may not. In other words neither sale is conditional on the other. This is documented.
A’s negotiation proceeds more quickly than B and A exchanges and completes even before B has reached agreement for sale. A month of so later B exchanges (on a similar but not identical contract for sale) and completes a further month later. The entire property had been valued at ?500k and the purchase price agreed for each sale was ?250k. There was no economic interdependence between the two transactions.
Is it arguable that the two sales are not linked or is there the interdependence referred to in AG v Cohen?