An agreement for the sale included the reservation: ‘[The Vendor] reserves the necessary land for making a railway through the estate to Prince Town.’ Specific performance was sought by the purchaser, and the vendor objected that it was void for uncertainty. In argument the purchaser disputed this, saying that the court could determine what land was necessary for the railway.
Held: The claim was refused. Sir G Jessel MR said: ‘The present contract is one which cannot be carried out by conveyance; and that being so, I do not see how the Court can alter it and make a new contract which can be carried out by conveyance. . . If the contract were executed in this form, it is obvious, according to the present law, the whole land would pass to the purchaser, the reservation being void for uncertainty. But this is not the intention of the parties, for the vendor intended to reserve a substantial part of the estate. The contract does not show what it is. I neither know what is the amount of land necessary for a railway, nor what line the railway is to take, nor anything about it, and, therefore, I cannot enforce specific performance of the contract.’
Sir G Jessel MR
(1873) LR 20 Eq 492, 20 Ch D 90, [1875] UKLawRpEq 111
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.258359