The testator had granted an option to his son, and in his will directed that if he did not exercise it, he should be granted a lease. A later deed then recited that the will had been varied by an agreement. That deed was referred to indirectly many years later, and the purchaser objected that the unfulfilled contract was a flaw in the title.
Held: The House was asked whether the seller had deduced a title good enough to be accepted.
Lord Russell of Killowen said that a purchaser is entitled to be satisfied that: ‘that his vendor is seized of the estate which he is purporting to sell, in this case the fee simple, and that he is in a position, without the possibility of dispute or litigation, to pass that fee simple to the purchaser.’
Judges:
Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon, Lord keith of Kinkel
Citations:
[1979] 3 All ER 752, [1981] AC 205
Cited by:
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg and Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc v Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc v Hopkin John and Co CA 21-May-1998
The defendant solicitors had each acted for banks in completing charges over property. They had given the standard agreed form of undertaking to secure a good and marketable title, and the banks now alleged that they were in breach because . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.229217