Goss against Lord Nugent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1833 |
| Date | 29 May 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 713
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 28; 2 L. J. K. B. 127. Applied, Harvey v. Grabham, 1836, 5 Ad. & E. 74; Stowell v. Robinson, 1837, 3 Bing. N. C. 938. Explained, Noble v. Ward, 1866-67, L. R. 1 Ex. 122; L. R. 3 Q. B. 272; Young v. Austen, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 557; Fyers v. Rosedale and Ferryhill Iron Company, 1873-75, L. R. 8 Ex. 316; L. R. 10 Ex. 195. Applied, Sanderson v. Graves, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 237; Hickman v. Haynes, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 603.
[58] Goss against lord nugent. Wednesday, May 29th, 1833. By agreement/ in writing A. contracted to sell B. several lots of land, and to make a good titled to them ; and a deposit was paid. It was afterwards discovered that a good title1 could not be made to one of the lots, and it was then verbally agreed between the parties, that the vendee should waive the title, as to that lot. The vendor delivered possession of the whole of the lots to the vendee, which he accepted. In an action brought by the vendor to recover the remainder of the purchase-money, the declaration stated that the defendant agreed to deduce a good title to all the lots except one, and that the vendee discharged and exonerated him from making out a good title to that lot, and waived his right to require the same : Held, that oral testimony was not admissible to shew the waiver of the vendee's right to a good title as to that lot, inasmuch as the effect of such waiver was to substitute a different contract for the one in writing; and by the Statute of Frauds, in every action brought to charge a person on a contract for the sale of lands, the agreement must be in writing. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 28 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 127. Applied, Harvey v. Grabham, 1836, 5 Ad. & E. 74; Stowell v. Robinson, 1837,. 3 Bing. N. C. 938. Explained, Noble v. Ward, 1866-67, L. R. 1 Ex. 122 ; L. R. 2 Ex. 135. Referred to, Ogle v. Fane, 1867-68, L. R. 2 Q. B. 282; L. R. 3 Q. B. 272 ; Young v. Austen, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 557 ; Fyers v. Eosedale and Ferryhill Iron Company, 1873-75, L. R. 8 Ex. 316; L. R. 10, Ex. 195. Applied, Sanderson v. Graves, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 237; Hickman v. Haynes, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 60S.] Declaration stated, that, on the 13th of August 1830, the plaintiff was about to expose for sale, by public auction, fourteen lots of freehold land, upon the following, among other, conditions:--"That the purchasers should pay down immediately, into the hands of the auctioneer, a deposit of 151. per cent, on the purchase money, and should sign an agreement for the payment of the remainder on the 29th of September then next; that the vendor, at his own expense, should deliver to each purchaser, or his solicitor, an abstract of the title of the property sold, and should deduce a good title thereto; and upon the purchaser's payment of the remainder of the purchase money, and complying with those conditions, the vendor should, at the purchaser's expense, convey his lot to, or as directed by him." Averment, that, before the land was exposed to sale, by a certain agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff, in consideration of 801. paid by the defendant at the time of the signing the agreement, and of the further sum of 3701., to be paid by him on the 29th of September then next, agreed to sell, and the defendant agreed to purchase, the same land, under the conditions of sale as near as might be, [59] or such of them (5) See, as to granting new trials in criminal cases after acquittal, Bex v. Bennett, 1 Stra. 101, and some cases there cited. K. B. xxxix.-23* 714 GOSS V. LORD NUGENT 5 B. & AD. 60. as were then, under the said agreement, capable of taking effect. The declaration then stated mutual promises to perform the agreement and conditions of sale, and averred that the plaintiff delivered an abstract of the title to the property so sold, and deduced a good title thereto, and had always been ready to convey, &e. Breach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Properties Inc. v. Monenco Advisory Services Ltd. et al., (1996) 190 A.R. 257 (QB)
...Ltd. (1993), 144 A.R. 331 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 178 A.R. 127; 110 W.A.C. 127 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A]. Goss v. Nugent (Lord) (1833), 110 E.R. 713, refd to. [Schedule A]. Gillespie Brothers & Co. v. Cheney, Edgar & Co., [1896] 2 Q.B. 59, refd to. [Schedule A]. Francey v. Wawanes......
- He-Con Sdn Bhd v Bulyah binti Ishak and Another (pentadbir-pentadbir harta pusaka Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, si mati) (and Another Appeal)
-
Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd
...during the time that it was in preparation so as to add to or subtract from or in any manner to vary or qualify the written document: Goss v. Lord Nugent (1833) 5: B & Ad 58 per Lord Denman. Evidence in such a case should be restricted to evidence of the factual background known to the part......
-
Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd
...during the time that it was in preparation so as to add to or subtract from or in any manner to vary or qualify the written document: Goss v. Lord Nugent (1833) 5: B & Ad 58 per Lord Denman. Evidence in such a case should be restricted to evidence of the factual background known to the part......
-
COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (SEPTEMBER 7-10, 2021)
...v. Mellon (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), Royal Bank v. Davidson (1972), 25 D.L.R. (3d) (N.S.C.A.), Goss v. Nugent (1833), 5 B & Ad. 58, 110 E.R. 713 (Eng. K.B.), Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200 Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance, 2021 ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 7 ' 10, 2021)
...v. Mellon (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), Royal Bank v. Davidson (1972), 25 D.L.R. (3d) (N.S.C.A.), Goss v. Nugent (1833), 5 B & Ad. 58, 110 E.R. 713 (Eng. K.B.), Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200 Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance, 2021 ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 7 ' 10, 2021)
...v. Mellon (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), Royal Bank v. Davidson (1972), 25 D.L.R. (3d) (N.S.C.A.), Goss v. Nugent (1833), 5 B & Ad. 58, 110 E.R. 713 (Eng. K.B.), Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200 Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance, 2021 ......
-
Agreements in Writing
...[1918] AC 1 (HL) [ Morris ]; Johnson Investments Ltd v Pagritide , [1923] 2 DLR 985 (Alta CA). 123 Goss v Lord Nugent (1833), 5 B & Ad 58, 110 ER 713; Brooks v Stainer , [1963] 2 OR 481 (HC). 124 Morris , above note 122; Johnson Investments Ltd v Pagritide , above note 122. 125 Morris , abo......