The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was ambiguous. No order for damages could be made, however where it was impossible for the court to assess such damages. ‘In my judgment, when a property, the subject matter of a conveyancing document, is described as ‘the property known as . .’ it is permissible, indeed inevitable, that recourse will be had to extrinsic evidence to identify the property so known. In Spall v. Owen (1981) 44 P. and C.R. 36, in which there was a description of a property as ‘the property known as plot No. 1,’ I said . . that such a description cried aloud for evidence of the surrounding circumstances.’
Citations:
Times 22-Oct-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1572, [1999] 1 WLR 375
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morrell v Fisher 22-Dec-1849
A devise of ‘all my leasehold farm-house, homestead, lands, and tenements at Headington, containing about 170 acres, held under Magdalen College, Oxford, and now in the occupation of Thomas Burrows’ was construed as excluding two parcels of land not . .
Cited – In Re Bright-Smith 1886
The court construed the devise of ‘my freehold farm and land situate at Edgware and now in the occupation of James Bray’ as including copy holds which were part of his farm and land situate at Edgware and in the occupation of James Bray, even though . .
Cited – Spall v Owen 1981
There was a description of a property as ‘the property known as plot number 1’.
Held: Peter Gibson LJ said that such a description cried aloud for evidence of the surrounding circumstances. . .
Cited – Targett and Targett v Ferguson and Diver 1996
The common intention of the parties to a contract is to be construed objectively. The objective test to be satisfied is, what would the reasonable layman think he was buying? . .
See also – Freeguard v Rogers CA 26-Jan-1999
Judgment had been obtained. An order was in preparation for specific performance of an option over land. The parties were unable to agree the form of the order, and it was relisted.
Held: The Freeguards’ objections to the proposed form had no . .
See Also – Freeguard and another v Rogers and another CA 31-Mar-1999
After protracted, complicated and bitter litigation, ‘To put the matter quite briefly, Mr and Mrs Rogers’s solicitors appear to be taking advantage rightly or wrongly – and if they have a legal right to do so, of course they have a right to do so – . .
Cited by:
See Also – Freeguard v Rogers CA 26-Jan-1999
Judgment had been obtained. An order was in preparation for specific performance of an option over land. The parties were unable to agree the form of the order, and it was relisted.
Held: The Freeguards’ objections to the proposed form had no . .
Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
See Also – Freeguard and another v Rogers and another CA 31-Mar-1999
After protracted, complicated and bitter litigation, ‘To put the matter quite briefly, Mr and Mrs Rogers’s solicitors appear to be taking advantage rightly or wrongly – and if they have a legal right to do so, of course they have a right to do so – . .
Cited – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012
The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145051
