A house was sold at auction by a mortgagee ‘subject to any easements.’ It turned out to be subject to an easement in favour of a neighbour entitling her to come and wash her clothes in the kitchen. The vendor’s solicitor had been told that the neighbour claimed such a right but made no inquiries because he ‘was not going to put other people on their guard about mere claims’.
Held: The solicitor’s response was not good enough. The vendor’s solicitor had been put on inquiry and had a duty to investigate the claim further. The court dismissed the vendor’s action for specific performance, and ordered the return of the deposit.
Judges:
Vice-Chancellor Bacon
Citations:
(1883) 25 ChD 357
Cited by:
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – Area Estates Ltd v Weir CA 20-Jul-2010
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of land with vacant possession. It was subject to a lease which the seller said had been surrendered, and it refused to accept any requisitions of objections. After exchange it appeared that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185664
