A person who contracts to purchase land, but where the title is, without collusion, defective cannot claim for his loss of bargain. ‘These contracts are merely upon condition, frequently expressed, but always implied, that the vendor has good title. If he has not, the return of the deposit with interest and costs, is all that can be expected.’ ‘Upon a contract for a purchase, if the title proves bad, and the vendor is, without fraud, incapable of making a good one, I do not think the pourchaser can be entitled to any damages for the fancied goodness of the bargain, which he supposes he has lost.’
Judges:
Blackstone J, De Grey CJ
Citations:
(1776) 2 Wm Bl 1078, 96 ER 635, [1746] EngR 175, (1746-1779) 2 Black W 1078, (1746) 96 ER 635
Links:
Cited by:
Approved – Bain v Fothergill HL 1874
The defendants intended to sell to the plaintiffs their leasehold interests in mining royalties, but were under a covenant not to sell without the consent of the lessors. A condition of the sale provided for ‘ the usual covenant for our protection . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract, Damages
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183267
