(1866) LR 2 Ch App 21
Chancery Appeals
Hallet purchased an estate from Dimmock. The particulars of sale described a farm called Bull Hassocks Farm, containing 300 acres, as 'Lately in the occupation of Mr R Hickson, at an annual rent of £290 15s Now in hand.' Another farm, called Creyke's Hundreds, containing 115 acres, was mentioned as ' let to Mr R Hickson, a yearly Lady Day tenant (old style) at £130 per annum.' Another farm, Misson Springs, containing 131 acres, was mentioned to be 'let to Mr F Wigglesworth, a yearly Lady Day tenant (new style) at £160 per annum.' On taking possession of the estate Hallet found that the land was not 'fertile and improvable' but was almost a wilderness and in part abandoned. Hallet also found that Bull Hassocks Farm could not be let for anything like £290 15s a year. Furthermore two of the tenants who had been described as continuing tenants had given notice to quit their farms, which form a large part of the estate. Hallet claimed that these misstatements amounted to a misrepresentation by Dimmock and that, therefore, the contract of sale should be rescinded on the grounds of misrepresentation.
The crucial point was that the particulars of sale described the estate as 'fertile and improvable land'.
Turner LJ
The purchaser further grounds his case on misrepresentation in the particulars. Some of the instances alleged appear to me to be unimportant. Thus I think that a mere general statement that land is fertile and improvable, whereas part of it has been abandoned as useless, cannot, except in extreme cases - as, for instance, where a considerable part is covered with water, or otherwise irreclaimable - be considered such a misrepresentation as to entitle a purchaser to be discharged. In the present case, I think the statement is to be looked at as a mere flourishing description by an auctioneer.