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 for any misdescription. In fact it was not fit for development since it extended over a culvert. This was not ascertainable on an inspection, and was unknown to the vendor also.
Held: The purchaser could rescind the contract, since the property was so fundamentally different as not to be the one contracted to buy, and the vendor had therefore failed to make good title.
Citations:
[1902] 2 Ch 258, [1902] 71 LJ Ch 666, [1902] LT 189
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Flight v Booth 24-Nov-1834
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219186