Hill v Harris: CA 1965

A lessor or vendor does not impliedly warrant that the premises are fit for any particular purpose. It is the contract which allocates the risk of the premises being unfit for such a purpose to the lessee. The lessee has duties to investigate the title, and to ensure that the permitted use under the tenancy was the permitted use in planning law.

Citations:

[1965] 2 QB 601, [1965] 1 All ER 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWilliam 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185669