The seller sought specific performance of the contract for the sale of his land. The buyer said that the title shown was defective.
Held: Though the court found favour with the title, this had not been on any general rule of law, but on the construction of a particular will, and the court refused specific performance.
The court was asked what extent of title defect would allow a purchaser to reject it: ‘The rule rests upon this, that every purchaser is entitled to require a marketable title, by which I understand to be meant a title which, so far as its antecedents are concerned, may at all times and in all circumstances be forced on an unwilling purchaser . . and that this is the true rule to be applied in such cases is I think the more apparent from the repeated decisions that the Court will not compel a purchaser to take a title which will expose him to litigation or hazard.’
Turner V-C
(1853) 10 Hare 1, [1852] EngR 792, (1852) 10 Hare 1, (1852) 68 ER 813
Commonlii
England and Wales
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, Equity
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.229219