Webster v Cecil
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 812
ROLLS COURT
See Tamplin v. James, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 221; Aspinalls to Powell and Scholefield, 1889, 60 L. T. 595.
[62] webster v. cecil. June 21, 1861. [See Tamj lin v. James, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 221; Aspinallx to Powell and Sdwlejicld, 1889, 60 L. T. 595.] The Defendant, by letter, offered to sell some property to the Plaintiff' for 1250; the Plaintiff, by letter, accepted the offer. The Defendant had, by mistake, inserted 1250 instead of 2250 in his letter, and he immediately gave notice of the error. The Court refused to enforce the contract. This was a suit by a purchaser for the specific performance of a contract entered into under the following circumstances. After some negotiations between the Plaintiff" and Defendant, the Defendant wrote the Plaintiff a letter elated the 22d of October 1860, in which he said " the twenty-one acres of land in question I will sell for .1100, and put Moor Cottage into the bargain, the furniture of which you may take too at a valuation if you like. I have only one 10 ground rent left, but will sell you that also if you like (with the rest) for 150." On the 25th of October 1860, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant in reply, a& follows :- "As you wish for an immediate answer, I write by return to say I accept your offer to sell twenty-one iicres of freehold, together with Mow Cottaye, for 1100, and a ground rent of 10 for 150, making 1:250 (twelve hundred and fifty) as the total purchase-money for the whole. I have no wish to be encumbered with any furniture, but if you will name a sum for the furniture, I will see if I can find you a purchaser. A valuation would be objected to." " I have written by this post to Messrs. Townsend, Ridley & Jackson, solicitors, of Liverpool and Birkenhead, to say that I have agreed to purchase the land, cottage-and ground rent of you for 1250, and to request that they will prepare the necessary and usual contract and documents as my solicitors, and you would do well to employ them also." [63] On receiving this letter, the Defendant became aware that he had made a mistake as to the price asked, and which had occurred in the following way :- Previously to writing his offer, the Defendant had made a calculation upon a piece of paper of the value of each parcel of the land called " the twenty-one acres oi land in question." The calculation was produced, and was as follows:- " Moor Ground! ., A The Moor / 45 Broad Close . . . . COO 0 0...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyas v Stafford
...3 Drew. 523. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Tamplin v. JamesELR 15 Ch. D. 215. Manser v. BackENR 6 Hare 443. Webster v. CecilENR 30 Beav. 62. Collen v. WrightENR 7 El. & Bl. 301. Malins v. Freeman 2 Keene 25. Pierce v. CorfeELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 210. Hinde v. WhitehouseENR 7 East 558. Ke......
- Taylor v Johnson
-
The Longvale Brick and Lime Works, Ltd Between Olivia Nora Colquhoun on Behalf of Herself and All Others The Holders of First Mortgage Debentures of The Defendant Company, Plaintiff, and The Longvale Brick and Lime Works, Ltd, Defendants
...Hare, 443. Re BanisterELR 12 Ch. D. 131, 141. Sanderson v. Walker 13 Ves. 601. Stone v. Godfrey 5 De G., M'N. & G. 76. Webster v. CecilENR 30 Beav. 62. Woods v. BrownIR [1915] 1 I. R. 29. Sale of Incumbered Lands by the Court — RE-opening Biddings — Auctioneer appointed by Court — Mistake —......
-
Nolan v Graves and Hamilton
...G. & J. 110. (1) 1 Dickens, 301. (2) 89 L. T. Jo. 274. (3) 1 Ves. Sen. 317. (4) 1 Ves. Sen. 456. (5) 9 Beav. 566. (6) 17 Beav, 608. (7) 30 Beav. 62. (8) 30 Beav. (1) 30 Beav. 431. (2) 13 L. R. Ir. 304. (3) L. R. 5 Eq. 1. (4) I. R. 9 Eq. 70. (5) [1923] 2 Ch. 136. (6) [1924] A. C. 196. (1) [1......
-
Fixed Charges Over Book Debts
...have accepted that a unilateral mistake might be a ground for with-holdinga n orderfor speci¢c performance (see Web s t e r vCe cil (1861) 30 Beav62;TamplinvJames(188 0)15Ch D 215) ora ground for ordering the recti¢cation of a written agreement (see Roberts & Co LtdvLeicestershireCC[1961] C......
-
Identity Mistakes: A Missed Opportunity?
...have accepted that a unilateral mistake might be a ground for with-holdinga n orderfor speci¢c performance (see Web s t e r vCe cil (1861) 30 Beav62;TamplinvJames(188 0)15Ch D 215) ora ground for ordering the recti¢cation of a written agreement (see Roberts & Co LtdvLeicestershireCC[1961] C......