Smith v Land and House Property Corp

Last updated

Smith v Land and House Property Corporation
Walton-on-the-Naze.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Citation(s)(1884) LR 28 Ch D 7
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Bowen LJ, Baggallay LJ, Fry LJ
Keywords
Misrepresentation,

Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) LR 28 Ch D 7 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of opinion can represent that one knows certain facts, and therefore one may have still made a misrepresentation.

Contents

Facts

Land and House Property Corp (LHP) contracted with Mr. Smith to buy the freehold title of the Marine Hotel at Walton-on-the-Naze. Mr. Smith had advertised that it was let to Mr. Fleck,

a most desirable tenant.

Land and House agreed to buy the Hotel. However, Mr. Fleck, who had been overdue with rent, went bankrupt just before transfer of title. Land and House Property Corp. refused to complete the transaction, defending Smith's specific performance suit on the basis that the description of Fleck's "virtues" was grounds for misrepresentation. [1] H.H. Asquith appeared for the landlord.

Judgment

Bowen LJ held there was a misrepresentation relied on by LHP. He held that statements of opinions can often involve statements of facts, because, "if the facts are not equally known to both sides, then a statement of opinion by the one who knows the facts best involves very often a statement of a material fact, for he impliedly states that he knows facts which justify his opinion."

Bowen LJ said with his opinion the landlord "avers that the facts peculiarly within his knowledge are such as to render that opinion reasonable." And it "amounts at least to an assertion that nothing has occurred in the relations between the landlords and the tenant which can be considered to make the tenant an unsatisfactory one... . In my opinion a tenant who has paid his last quarter’s rent by driblets under pressure must be regarded as an undesirable tenant."

Given that the misrepresentation did induce the LHP to enter the contract initially, Mr. Smith was not entitled to specific performance of the contract.

Baggallay LJ and Fry LJ concurred.

See also

Notes

  1. Ben-Ishai, Stephanie. "Contracts: Cases and Commentaries (8th Ed)" Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine . Carswell, 2009, p.359.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen</span> English judge

Charles Synge Christopher Bowen, Baron Bowen, was an English judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Renting</span> Payment for temporary use; hiring

Renting, also known as hiring or letting, is an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another. A gross lease is when the tenant pays a flat rental amount and the landlord pays for all property charges regularly incurred by the ownership. An example of renting is equipment rental. Renting can be an example of the sharing economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlord</span> Owner of a rented building, land or real estate

A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called a tenant. When a juristic person is in this position, the term landlord is used. Other terms include lessor and owner. The term landlady may be used for the female owners. The manager of a pub in the United Kingdom, strictly speaking a licensed victualler, is referred to as the landlord/landlady. In political economy it refers to the owner of natural resources alone from which an economic rent, a form of passive income, is the income received.

A leasehold estate is an ownership of a temporary right to hold land or property in which a lessee or a tenant holds rights of real property by some form of title from a lessor or landlord. Although a tenant does hold rights to real property, a leasehold estate is typically considered personal property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Baggallay</span> British politician

Sir Richard Baggallay PC was a British barrister, politician, and judge. After serving as Attorney-General under Benjamin Disraeli from 1874 to 1875, Baggallay was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in Chancery, serving until his death in 1883.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Fry</span> British judge

Sir Edward Fry, was an English Lord Justice of Appeal (1883–1892) and an arbitrator on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

A slumlord is a slang term for a landlord, generally an absentee landlord with more than one property, who attempts to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods, and to tenants that they can intimidate. Severe housing shortages allow slumlords to charge higher rents, and when they can get away with it, to break rental laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust</i>

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust[1999] UKHL 26 is an English land law case that examined the rights of a 'tenant' in a situation where the 'landlord', a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the 'tenant' sought to enforce the duty to repair on the association implied under landlord and tenant statutes. The effect of the case is to create the relationship of de facto landlord and tenant between the parties.

<i>Liverpool City Council v Irwin</i>

Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] UKHL 1 is a leading English contract law case, concerning the basis on which courts may imply terms into contracts; in particular in relation to all types of tenancies, a term may be implied if required for a particular relationship, such as for the landlord to keep the stairwells clear in a tower block. The tenants also had a duty of reasonable care which some among them had been repeatedly breached and led to a continuing breach in matters of damage about which they complained so they were not entitled to withhold rent on the facts.

Dimmock v Hallett (1866–67) LR 2 Ch App 21 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.

<i>City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd</i>

City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 is an English contract law case, regarding the parol evidence rule. It illustrates one of the large exceptions, that a written document is not deemed to be exhaustive of the parties intentions when there is clear evidence of a collateral contract. It shows that even evidence from outside a written agreement may contradict evidence inside it.

<i>Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board</i>

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500 is an English land law and English contract law appeal decision. The case, decided by Denning LJ, confirmed positive covenants can supplant privity of contract in contracts to improve land and secondly a covenant should be implied where the contract shows an intention that the obligation would attach to the land. The case thirdly held in that context, a somewhat uncertain description of lands which was capable of being rendered certain by extrinsic evidence was sufficient to enforce the covenant.

<i>Bisset v Wilkinson</i>

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 is a leading contract law case from New Zealand on the issue of misrepresentation. The case establishes that a mere misstatement of opinion given fairly cannot amount to a misrepresentation.

<i>Street v Mountford</i>

Street v Mountford[1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy, or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties.

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence.

<i>Errington v Wood</i>

Errington v Wood[1951] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law and English land law judicial decision of the Court of Appeal concerning agreement and the right to specific performance of an assurance that is relied on.

Rent regulation in England and Wales is the part of English land law that creates rights and obligations for tenants and landlords. The main areas of regulation concern,

<i>Solle v Butcher</i>

Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said,

... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.