Laird v Pim and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1841 |
| Date | 20 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 852
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Dowl. P. C. 860; 10 L. J. Ex. 259. Distinguished, Yates v. Gardiner, 1851, 20 L. J. Ex. 327. Applied, East London Union v. The Metropolitan Railway, L. R. 4 Ex. 310. Referred to, Leader v. Tod-Heatley, [1891] W. N. 38.
laird v. pim and another. Exch. of Pleas Jan. 18, 20, 1841.-Where a party i-3?i.iL -,j, has been let into possession of lands under a contract of purchase, but does riot '^SStiKjQ^jjomplete the purchase, and refuses to pay the purchase-money, and no conveyance is executed, the vendors cannot recover from him the whole amount of tho purchase-money, but only the damages actually sustained by his breach of contract. -In assumpsit by the vendor against the purchasers of land, the declaration stated, that in consideration of the plaintiff's selling to the defendants certain land, to be paid for as soon as the conveyance should be completed, the defendants promised to purchase and pay for the same. Averment, thatalthough the plaintiff '-- had allowed the defendants to enter into possession of the lands, and had always been ready and willing to make a good title, and offered the defendants to execute a conveyance, and would have tendered a proper conveyance, but that the defendants discharged him from so doing; yet the defendants did not regard their said promise, and did not pay the plaintiff the purchase-money, or any part thereof. Plea, that no conveyance had ever been made or executed to the defendants :-Held, on general demurrer, that the plea was bar], and the declaration good.-Quaere, whether the declaration would have been sufficient on special demurrer. [S. C. 8 Dowl. P. C. 860; 10 L. J. Ex. 259. Distinguished, Yate* v. Gardiner, 1851, 20 L. J. Ex. 327. Applied, East London Union v. The JMe/nj/olitan llaihvay, L. R. 4 Ex. 310. Referred to, Leader v. Tud-Heatley, [1891] W. N. 38.] Assurapsit. The first count of the declaration stated, that on tho nth day of April, 1836, in consideration .that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendants, would TM. aw. 475. LAIRD V. PIM 853 sell them a lot or parcel of land, situated between Bidston Road and Cleveland Street, in the county of Chester, at the price or rate of 7s. 6d. by the square yard, to be paid as soon as the conveyance thereof should be completed, with interest thenceforth on such- purchase-money, at the rate of 5 per cent, by the year, until paid, the defendants to have the liberty of making bricks and erecting steam-engines on such lot or parcel of land, the defendants promised the plaintiff to purchase the said lot or parcel of land of the plaintiff, and to pay him for the same at the rate or price and on the terms aforesaid. And the plain-[475]-tiff says, that although the plaintiff, relying on the Said promise of the defendants, did, within a short and reasonable time from the makjng of the said promise, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, allow and permit the defendants to enter into and take possession of the said lot or parcel of land, and the defendants did, to wit, then, take such possession thereof, and have continued in such possession for a long time, to wit, hitherto : and although the plaintiff, from the time of making the said promise to the commencement of this suit, has performed and fulfilled every thing on his part to be performed and fulfilled, and lias always been ready and willing to make appear to the defendants a good and sufficient title in, and right and power to convey, the said lot or parcel of land in fee-simple, together with the liberty aforesaid, and to execute and complete a conveyance thereof in fee-simple to the defendants, together with the liberty aforesaid ; and after the expiration of a reasonable time, and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 28th of October 1837, ottered the defendants to execute and complete a conveyance thereof, together with the liberty aforesaid, to the defendants, and would then have tendered to the defendants ji draft of a proper conveyance, and also a proper conveyance, for the purpose aforesaid, but that the defendants then discharged the plaintiff from so doing ; of all which the defendants), from the time of making the said promise, have had notice : yet the defendants did not regard their said promise, and did not nor would pay the plaintiff the said purchase-money for the said lot or parcel of laud, together with the said liberty, or tiny part thereof, at or after the expiration of the said reasonable time as aforesaid, or at any other time, but have wholly neglected and refused so to do; and the plaintiff has been and is wholly deprived of the said purchase-money, amounting to a large sum, to wit, 4125, together with interest thereon, to which he ought and otherwise would have been entitled as aforesaid. [476] There were also counts for use and occupation, goods sold and delivered, and upon an account stated. The defendants pleaded non assumpserunt, and several special pleas, of which the sixth plea (to the first count) was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Martin v Hogan
-
Indian Overseas Bank v Cheng Lai Geok
... ... By another option in writing, Ho granted to one Ong and one Kassim an option to purchase the subject properties. These two options were exercised by the parties ... NSWLR 428 (folld) Essex v Daniell (1875) LR 10 CP 538 (refd) Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367; [1979] 1 All ER 883 (folld) Laird v Pim (1841) 7 M & W 474 (folld) Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221 (refd) McKenna v Richey [1950] VLR 360 (folld) ... ...
-
PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and Another (Claimants/Appellants) v O.W. Bunker Malta Ltd and Another
...Shipping Co LtdWLR [1994] 1 WLR 1334. Harry & Garry Ltd v JariwallaUNK (unreported, 16 June 1988, CA). Laird v PimENR (1841) 7 M & W 474; 151 ER 852. Martineau v KitchingELR (1872) LR 7 QB 436. Minister for Supply and Development v Servicemen's Co-operative Joinery Manufacturers LtdUNK (195......
-
Hooper v Oates
...fails to complete the normal measure of damages is the contract price less the market price at the date of breach. As in McGregor, Laird v Pim (1846) 7 M&W 474 and some other cases are cited in support of this proposition. 22 In Laird v Pim the buyer of the land had gone into possession bef......