Flight v Booth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1834 |
| Date | 24 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 1160
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Scott, 190; 4 L. J. C. P. 66. Considered, Spunner v. Walsh, 1847, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 386. Applied, In re Davis and Cavey, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 608; In re Fawcett and Holmes' Contract, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 150. Discussed, Jacobs v. Revell, [1900] 2 Ch. 864. Applied In re Puckett and Smith's Contract, [1902] 2 Ch. 258. Distinguished, Shepherd v. Croft, [1911] 1 Ch 525, 527, 528.
flight v. booth. Nov. 24, 1834. [S. C. 1 Scott, 190 ; 4 L. J. C. P. 66. Considered, Spunner v. Walsh, 1847, 10 Ir. Eq. R. ''386. Applied, In re Davis and Cavey, 1888, 40 Cb. D. 608 ; In re Fawcett and Holmes' ò Contract, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 150. Discussed, Jacobs v. Eevell, [1900] 2 Cb. 864. Applied In re Puckett and Smith's Contract, [1902] 2 Cb. 258. Distinguished, Shepherd v. Croft, [1911] 1 Ch. 525, 527, 528. The particulars of sale of certain leasehold premises in Covent Garden stated, that under the original lease " no offensive trade was to be carried on, and that the premises could not be let to a coffee-house keeper or working hatter."-The original lease, when produced, appeared to prohibit the businesses of brewer, baker, sugar-baker, vintner, victualler, butcher, tripe-seller, poulterer, fishmonger, cheese-seller, fruiterer, herb-seller, coffee-house keeper, working-hatter, and many others, and the sale of coals, potatoes, or any provisions: Held, that there was such a material discrepancy between the particulars and the lease, as to entitle a purchaser to rescind his contract. This cause having, by consent of parties, been referred to arbitration under an order of nisi prius, the arbitrator found, in a special award, That the declaration in this action was for money paid by the Plaintiff for the Defendant's use, and for money received by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's use, to which the general issue was pleaded; and the action [371] was brought to recover the sum of 1001. paid by the Plaintiff as a deposit on the purchase by auction of certain premises situated in the Piazza, Covent Garden, and held under a lease from the Duke of Bedford. The premises were described in the printed particulars of sale, on the back of which the Plaintiff had signed the memorandum of the contract, as calculated for an extensive business in carpets, haberdashery, drapery, paper, floorcloth, upholstery, grocery, tea trade, or coach-building. It was also stated in the same particulars, that, by a clause in the lease, " the lessee is to insure the premises for 30001., and no offensive trade is to be carried on; they cannot be let to a coffeehouse keeper, or working hatter." Printed conditions of sale followed; and by the sixth it was provided, that if, through any mistake, the estate should be improperly described or any error or misstatement be inserted in that particular, such error or mis-statement should not vitiate the sale, but the vendor or purchaser, as the case might happen, should pay or allow a proportionate value according to the average of the whole purchase-money, as a compensation either way. By the last condition it was, among other things, provided, that if the purchaser should neglect or fail to complete the purchase within a day, which had expired previously to the commencement of the action, the deposit money should become forfeited to the vendor. The sale took place, and the contract was signed, on the 16th of May 1833. On the 10th of June an abstract of title was delivered by the vendor's solicitor to the Plaintiff's, which contained the following note of the proviso hereinafter set out,-"proviso for re-entry in 1 BING. (N. C.) 372. FLIGHT V. BOOTH 1161 case of non-payment of rent, or non-performance of covenants, or carrying on any particular trade without a licence for that purpose under the hand of the Duke of Bedford first had and obtained." At the date [372] of the sale and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cox v Hoban
- Guan Soon Transport Company Ltd; Mahn Singh and Others
-
Asia Commodity Traders Pte Ltd v Fook Hai Development Pte Ltd
...The question was whether the misdescription was such as to entitle the plaintiffs to rescind the contract altogether.In Flight v Booth 131 ER 1160 Tindal CJ said (at p 1162): It is extremely difficult to lay down, from the decided cases, any certain definite rule which shall determine what ......
-
Yeoman Credit Ltd v Apps
...a character as altogether to alter the bargain made, going (as was said) to the root of the bargain that is the well known doctrine of Flight v. Booth, a case reported in volume 1 Bingham (New Cases) at page 370. So I see no difficulty in assenting to the view that if this were a fundamenta......
-
Inside track: Property & Real Estate - In the media, In practice and courts, Cases and Legislation
...HCA 12; (1923) 31 CLR 524; Travinto Nominees Pty Ltd v Vlattas [1973] HCA 14; (1973) 129 CLR 1; Flight v Booth [1834] EngR 1087; (1834) 1 Bing (NC) 370; 131 ER DJM Group Pty Ltd v Calypso Sports Pty Ltd (Building and Property) (Costs) (No 2) [2019] VCAT 1386 RETAIL LEASES - at the hearing, ......
-
Inside Track: Competition and Consumer Law - In the media, practice and regulation, cases and legislation
...[2020] NSWSC 213 LAND LAW - contract for sale of land - claim for rescission pursuant to the rule in Flight v Booth [1834] EngR 1087; (1834) 1 Bing (NC) 370 - plaintiff entered into contract to purchase a stratum lot in an unregistered plan of subdivision - draft plan annexed to contract sh......
-
Property & Projects What's News - 10 March 2014
...in size of property - whether plaintiff entitled to return of deposit pursuant to the rule in Flight v Booth [1834] EngR 1087; (1834) 131 ER 1160 - whether plaintiff alternatively entitled to return of deposit for misleading or deceptive conduct pursuant to the Competition and Consumer Act ......
-
Off-the-plan sales - representations about size
...is still extremely important in the purchase of property, the common law does provide some protection to purchasers. In Flight v Booth (1834) 131 ER 1160, for instance, it was held that where a misdescription is so significant that the purchaser would never have entered the contract if he o......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...Justice Megarry was of the view that in order to render the damages truly in 152 Le Mesurier v Andrus , ibid . 153 Flight v Booth (1834), 1 Bing (NC) 370, 131 ER 1160 (CP). 154 Pyrke v Waddingham (1852), 10 Hare 1, 68 ER 813 (VC); Danby v Stewart (1979), 97 DLR (3d) 734 (Ont HCJ). 155 See, ......