Scott v Hanson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 August 1826 |
| Date | 14 August 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 483
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 67; affirmed, I Russ, & My. 128; 39 E. R. 49. See Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 14.
Vendor and Purchaser. Misrepresentation.
[13] scott v. hanson. July 22, August 14, 1826. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 67 ; affirmed, 1 Russ. & My. 128 ; 39 E. R. 49. See Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 14.] Vendor and Purchaser. Misrepresentation. A piece of land, imperfectly watered, was described in the particular as uncommonly rich water meadow : Held that this was not such a misrepresentation as would avoid the sale. An estate, sold by auction, was described, in the particulars of sale, as consisting of fourteen acres of uncommonly rich water meadow-land, let on lease with other 484 VICARY V. WIDGEB 1 SIM. l*. land for a term of which four years were unexpired ; and it was then stated that the apportioned rent for this lot was 75. A suit having been instituted by the vendor for a specific performance of the contract, it appeared in evidence that, on account of the high level of this meadow and the low level of some adjoining land, the former was imperfectly watered. It was objected, for the purchaser, that it was not proved to be a water meadow. But the Vice-Chancellor, ruling that a meadow which was watered, though imperfectly, was not improperly described as a water meadow, it was then insisted that to describe it, in the particular, as uncommonly rich water meadow-land was a misrepresentation ; and that a Court of Equity ought not to assist the vendor, but should leave him to his action at law. For the vendor it was argued that the principles as to representation were the same in equity as at law : that the real quality of this land, being an object of sense, and obvious to ordinary diligence, it was the fault of the purchaser if he did not inspect it and judge for himself : that, the amount of the annual rent being stated, which was the criterion of the value, the purchaser could not be deceived : that when the land was [14] said to be uncommonly rich, it was spoken of comparatively only -f and that the question throughout the cause had been, not whether the land was uncommonly rich water meadow, but whether it was water meadow at all. The cases cited for the Plaintiff were Fenton v. Browne (14 Ves. 144), and Trower v. Newcmne (3 Mer. 704). the VlOE-CHANCELLOR took time to consider the case, and then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flight v Booth
...having found that there was no fraud, the plaintiff could not rescind the contract; Oldfield v. Round (5 Ves. 508), Scott v. Hanson (1 Sim. 13). If there be any misdescription, the conditions of sale expressly entitle him to compensation, and Drewe v. Hanson (6 Ves. 675) shews the principle......
-
Pacific Playground Holdings Ltd. v. Endeavour Developments Ltd. et al., 2002 BCSC 126
...Ltd. v. Welldone Ventures Canada Inc., [1991] B.C.J. No. 3407 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23]. Scott v. Hanson (1829), 1 Russ. & M. 128; 39 E.R. 49 (L.C.), refd to. [para. Kingu v. Walmar Ventures Ltd. (1986), 10 B.C.L.R.(2d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [199......
-
Andronyk v. Williams, (1985) 36 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)
...89, refd to. [para. 54]. Demuck v. Hallet (1866), L.R. 2 Ch. App. 21, refd to. [para. 56]. Scott v. Hansen (1829), 1 Russ & M. 128; 39 E.R. 49, refd to. [para. Hanson v. Franz (1918), 57 S.C.R. 57, refd to. [para. 63]. Hayward v. Mellick (1984), 5 D.L.R.(4th) 740 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [......
-
Pope v Garland
...immaterial, on: the ground of the defect being obvious to the senses of the purchaser, see Dyer v. Haryraix, 10 Ves. 505; Scott v. Hanson, 1 Sim. 13. 1 Russ. & M. 128. 1064 GATOR V. THE CROVDON CANAL COMPANY 4 Y. & C. EX. 405. it was not intended to sell by the plan. I can understand a gene......
-
Misrepresentation
...21 DLR (4th) 557 (Man CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused (1986), 42 Man R (2d) 242n (SCC) . 7 Scott v Hanson (1829), 1 Russ & M 128, 39 ER 49 (Ch). 8 Dimmock v Hallett (1866), LR 2 Ch App 21. 9 Rasch v Horne , [1930] 3 DLR 647 (Man CA) [ Rasch v Horne ]. 10 Andrews v Hopkinson , [1957] 1 Q......