The Rule in Seddon's Case

Published date01 May 1963
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1963.tb00713.x
Date01 May 1963
AuthorM. Howard
THE
RULE
IN
SEDDON’S
CASE
THE purpose
of
this article is, in the first place, to consider those
cases which are cited in the textbooks on contract as supporting
the proposition that the courts, both before and after
Seddon
v.
North Eastern Salt
Co.,
Ltd.,2
have granted rescission
of
an
executed contract on the grounds of innocent misrepresentation.
From an examination of these cases, it will become apparent that,
with one exception, they provide no support for this statement.
Solle
v.
Butcher
and
Leaf
v.
International Galleries
will also
be considered in this context and
it
will be seen that the authority
which these cases provide is equally slight. Secondly, it will be
submitted that there is no direct authority which has accepted the
view that the remedy of rescission is available, where only innocent
misrepresentation is pleaded
or
proved, whether the subject-matter
of
the executed cantract be the conveyance of land, the leasing of
property
or
the sale of goods.
I
It
will be seen that, apart from
Whun
v.
Daveni~h,~
the decisions
cited in the textbooks fall into one of the‘following categories.
A
case where:
(a) The contract was still executory.s
1
Cheshire and Fifoot,
The Law
of
Contract
(5th ed.), p.
236,
note
3
and
Wilson,
Principles
of
the Law
of
Contract,
p.
154,
note
18,
cite
Whittington
v.
Seale-Hayne
(1900) 82
L.T.
49;
Reese River Silvcr lCIining
Co..
Ltd.
v.
Smith
(1869)
L.R.
4
H.L.
64;
Rawlins
v.
Wickham
(1858) 3
De
G.
8;
J.
304;
MacKenzie
v.
Royal Bank
of
Canada
[1934]
A.C.
468.
In
addition.
Cheshire and Fifoot (p.
236,
note
3)
refer to
Redgrave
v.
Hurd
(1881) 20
Ch.D.
1;
Whurr
v.
Daoenish
(1904) 20
T.L.R.
385:
Att.-Gen.
v.
Ray
(1874)
9
Ch.App.
397.
Anson,
The Principles
of
the English Law
of
Contract
(21st
ed.), p.
228,
refers
in
the text to
MacKenzie
v.
Royal Bank
of
Canada
[1934]
A.C.
468
and
First
National Reinsurance
Co.
v.
Greenfield
[1921]
2
K;B.
260.
See also, an article entitled
‘I
Seddon
v.
North Eastern Salt
Co. by Mr. Hammelmann in
(1939) 55
L.Q.R.
90.
The Law Reform
Committee’s Tenth Report on Innocent Misrepresentation (Cmnd.
1782),
para.
8
refers to
Rawlins
V.
Wickham
(1858) 3
De
G.
&
J.
304;
Att.-Gen.
v.
Ray
(1874) 9
Ch.App.
397;
Redgrave
v.
Hurd
(1881) 20
Ch.D.
1;
Newbigging
v.
Adam
(1886) 34
Ch.D.
582
as “cases which are sometimes
cited as authority for the rule” in
Seddon’s Case
[1905]
1
Ch.
326.
It
would seem, however. that these cases are usually cited in argument
against
t,he rule in
Seddon’s
case: as being instances where the court rescinded
an executed contract
on
the grounds of innocent misrepresentation.
[1905]
1
Ch.
326.
[1950]
1
K.B.
671.
[1960] 2
K.B.
86.
(1904) 20
T.L.R.
385.
Redgraoe
v.
Hurd
(1881)
20
Ch.D.
1;
MacKenzie
v.
Royal Bank
of
Canada
[1934]
A.C.
468.
272

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT