References: [1834] 1 Bing NC 370, [1834] 1 Scott 190, [1834] 131 ER 1160, [1834] EngR 1087
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ
The auction particulars stated that the land was subject to covenants restricting use of the property for certain offensive purposes. After successfully bidding it was shown to be subject to other substantial restrictions against non-ofensive trades also.
Held: The purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover his deposit. Even though a misdescription may be unintended, where it is a material and substantial point, and a court could infer that the purchaser would not have bid for the property, the purchaser is not restricted to recovering compensation but may choose to rescind.
This case is cited by:
- Applied – In re Puckett & Smith’s Contract CA ([1902] 2 Ch 258, [1902] 71 LJ Ch 666, [1902] LT 189)
Land was sold for redevelopment after being described as fit for building, and the vendor knew that this was the purchaser’s intention. The contract said that the purchaser should rely on his own inspection, and that the vendor should not be liable . . - Cited – Cleaver and Others -v- Schyde Investments Ltd CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 929)
The parties had contracted for the sale of land. The purchaser secured the rescinding of the contract for innocent misrepresentation. A notice of a relevant planning application had not been passed on by the seller’s solicitors. The seller appealed . .