(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that these misstatements amounted to a misrepresentation by Dimmock and that, therefore, the contract of sale should be rescinded on the grounds of misrepresentation.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 issue before the court was whether the statements made by Dimmock amounted to a misrepresentation which entitled Hallett to have the contract annulled.
Turner LJ
The next alleged misrepresentation is much more important. A farm called Bull Hassocks, containing 300 acres, or nearly a third of the property put up for sale, is described as ' lately in the occupation of Mr R Hickson, at an annual rent of £290 15s. Now in hand.'' The facts are, that this farm had been let at a higher rent than £290 15s before Hickson became tenant. Hickson took the farm at Midsummer, 1863, at the rent of £290 15s. At Michaelmas, 1864, he left it, and there appears never to have been any actual tenancy between his leaving and the time of the sale. Mr Dimmock, however, being in possession, agreed with a Mr Nelson to let him Bull Hassocks Farm, and another farm called Creyke's Hundreds, containing 115 acres, at 15s per acre, which would bring the rent of Bull Hassocks Farm to £225 at most. That agreement was not carried into effect, for Nelson desired to be relieved of the farm, paid £20 to be off his bargain. Was it then fair and honest to describe the farm in the particulars as late in the occupation of Hickson at a rent of £290 15s, when Hickson had been out of possession nearly a year and a half, within which period there had been an agreement to let the farm at a rent less by £65 than that paid by him. Such a description amounts to a representation to the purchaser that he will come into possession of a farm which will let for £290 15s, whereas Mr Dimmock, who had agreed to let it for so much less, knew that nothing near that rent could be obtained for it. But the matter does not rest there, for even the representation that the farm had been let to Hickson at £290 15s was not correct. He had occupied it for it a year and a quarter, paying only £1 for the first quarter; and this took place at a time of year when the occupation must have been beneficial; for the farm contained about 150 acres of pastures, which Hickson thus held at a nominal rent from Midsummer to Michaelmas. I am of opinion, therefore, that the particulars contain representations which were untrue, and calculated materially to increase the apparent value of the property. The Court requires good faith in conditions of sale, and looks strictly at the statements contained in them.
Again, Creyke's Hundred's, containing 115 acres, is described as let to R Hickson, a yearly Lady Day tenant, at £130 per annum; and another farm, Misson Springs, containing 131 acres, is mentioned as let to Wigglesworth, a yearly Lady Day tenant, at £160 per annum. Now the sale took place on the 25th of January, 1866, and there is no reference made in the particulars to the fact that each of these tenants had given a notice to quit, which would expire at Lady Day. The purchaser, therefore, would be led to suppose, as to these farms, that he was purchasing with continuing tenancies at fixed rents, whereas he would, in fact, have to find tenants immediately after the completion of his purchase. I refer particularly to this, because as to some of the other farms it is stated in the particulars that the tenants had given notice to quit; so that the purchaser must have been led to believe that the tenants of Creyke's Hundreds and Misson Springs were continuing tenants. This again, as it seems to me, is a material misrepresentation...
I am of opinion, therefore, that [Hallett] is entitled to be discharged.