Wheeler v Le Marchant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1880 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Specific Performance - Mistake - Compensation.
The Plaintiff offered to take a lease of a farm belonging to the Defendant at a rent of £500 per annum, specifying in his tender the closes which he wished to take, with their acreage, which amounted in the whole to 249 acres. The Defendant's agent desired to let only 214 acres with this farm, but he accepted the Plaintiff's offer without looking at the acreage included in it. He had in fact already let one of the closes to another person. Another tender had been made by a former tenant for the same farm, as comprising 235 acres, and the Defendant's agent admitted in examination that he thought the Plaintiff had tendered for the same quantity of land as the former tenant. The Plaintiff commenced an action for specific performance against the Defendant, and was willing to take a lease of the 214 acres at a proportionately reduced rent:—
Held, that the Defendant must grant the Plaintiff a lease of 214 acres at a rent reduced from £500, in the proportion of 214 to 235.
THIS was an action to enforce specific performance of an alleged agreement by the Defendant, Sir T. G. F. Hesketh, to grant a lease of a farm to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant was the tenant for life in possession, with powers of leasing, of an estate called the Easton Neston estate, in Northamptonshire. In December, 1875, and January, 1876, Mr. Frederick Gray, the Defendant's agent, on his behalf, issued advertisements in the newspapers inviting tenders for the leases of some of the farms on the estate. By these advertisements applicants for leases were directed to, apply for particulars of the farms to Mr. A. E. Greville, the Plaintiff's solicitor, at Towcester, and printed forms of tender were prepared containing the conditions of letting, and in which blanks were left for inserting the name, situation, and acreage of the farm tendered for. In each tender there was a schedule intended to be filled up with a detailed description of the land comprised in the farm, with the culture and acreage of each field. The first two pages of the tender contained the name and general description of the farm and the terms of letting, the third page contained the schedule, and the fourth page contained the form of tender which was to be filled up by the person making the tender with his name and the amount of rent which he offered. It was intended that the description of the farm on the first page and the schedule should be filled up before the form of tender was issued by Mr. Greville. Before issuing the advertisements Mr. Gray had consulted the Plaintiff, who was a land surveyor, and a Mr. Dean, another surveyor, with regard to the re-arrangement of the farms before the proposed letting. One of the farms proposed to be let was called the Wood Burcote Farm, and was in the occupation of a Mr. Ayers, whose tenancy was about to expire at Michaelmas, 1876. This farm consisted of 214A. 1R. 13P. lying altogether, and Ayers also occupied some outlying parcels of land containing 21A. 0R. 38P. Mr. Dean advised the Defendant that these outlying parcels should be taken away from this farm, and that only the 214A. 1R. 13P. should be let to the next tenant. The Plaintiff advised that the outlying parcels should be taken away, but that in lieu of them two adjoining fields, containing respectively 18A. 3R. 26P. and 16A. 2R. 7P., which had respectively previously formed part of two farms known as Manning's Farm and Elliott's Farm, should be added to the Wood Burcote Farm, making the total acreage thereof 249A. 3R. 6P.
The printed forms of tender were ordered by the Plaintiff, and were, after they were printed, forwarded by him to Mr. Gray. It appeared, however, that the Plaintiff retained one of the printed forms in his own possession. Two tenders were sent in for the Wood Burcote Farm, one by the Plaintiff and one by Ayers. The Plaintiff's tender commenced as follows:— “Particulars and terms of letting the Wood Burcote Farm, situate on the Easton estate, in the parishes of, in the county of Northampton, containing homestead and about 249A. 3R. 6P. of land, with appurtenances, now in the occupation of Mr. John Ayers.” The schedule was filled up with the descriptions and acreage of the several fields comprising the farm, and in it were included the two fields containing respectively 18A. 3R. 26P. and 16A. 2R. 7P., which the Plaintiff had advised should be added to the farm, but the two outlying parcels occupied by Ayers were excluded. The total acreage was stated to be 249A. 3R. 6P. The tender on the fourth page was: “I, Alexander McKenzie, do hereby offer the sum of £500 rent per annum for the farm known as the Wood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B
...whether he had any books available other than Cross on Evidence, Archbold and perhaps Phipson on Evidence; and the only case cited, Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch. D. 675, is concerned with a different question altogether, namely, the protection of communications between a solicitor an......
-
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others and Other Suits
...by legal advice privilege would be those which emanated from third parties, and even then only if the decision in Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch D 675 was preferred over the decision of Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357 (“Pratt Holdings”): at [43] to [......
- Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd (No 2)
-
Schneider v Leigh
...A statement so given should, generally speaking, be regarded for this purpose in the same light as if it was given in Court. In Wheeler v. Le Merchant (1981), reported in 17 Chancery Division at page 675, at pages 681 and 682, SirGeorge Jessel, Master of the Rolls, said:" The protection is ......
-
Reinforcing The Primacy Of Privilege
...Process", in Law in Transition: Evidence [1984] Special Lect. L.S.U.C. 163, at pp. 164-65; Blank, at para. 28; Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881), 17 Ch. D. 675 (C.A.) at p. 681; Susan Hosiery Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. Dodek, Solicitor-Client Privilege, p. 23. Li......
-
Legal professional privilege - how far is the scope?
...HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49; 168 ALR 123, at [35]. 2 Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; 49 ALR 385; 57 ALJR 749. 3 Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch D 675 at 685 per Cotton 4 Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; The Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consu......
-
Loss adjuster's reports: when will legal professional privilege be attached?
...Insurance Association Ltd v Waind (1979) 141 CLR 648; Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244; Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) 17 ChD 675). The court stated that this is an objective question (at [18]; Nickmar Pty Ltd v Preservatrice Skandia Insurance Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 44 at 5......
-
Litigation
...privilege applies in relation to statutory adjudication: see Bell, “he role of privilege in adjudication” (2013) 29 Const LJ 433. 403 (1881) 17 Ch D 675 (CA). LITIGATION building works on the property, would not be privileged unless those documents came into existence for the purposes of ce......
-
Legal Advice Privilege and the Corporate Client
...apply to internal communications as its application to externalcommunications was apparently ruled out by Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881) LR 17 Ch D 675.75 Re Highgrade Traders Ltd [1984] BCLC 151 at 173–4; Price Waterhouse v BCCI (Luxembourg) SA[1992] BCLC 583 at 591.76 Three Rivers (No. 3) [......
-
Table of cases
...(C.A.).............................................................................................1024, 1026 Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881), 17 Ch. D. 675 (C.A.) ....................................................................................... 1019, 1026 Willits v. Johnston, 2003 CanL......
-
Table of Cases
...Warehouse Carpet Sales Ltd. (1989), 94 A.R. 57, [1989] 3 W.W.R. 616, [1989] A.J. No. 133 (C.A.).......... 229 Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881), 17 Ch. D. 675 (C.A.) ....................................... 200 Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595, 209 D.L.R. (4th) 257, 2002 SCC 18......