peyman v lanjanipeyman v lanjani

107 Blacklow v.Laws (1842) 2 Hare 40, 47. 83 Mr Pymont also relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in, 75 All these points are apparent from the speech of Lord Goff in The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 391. At the beginning of 1979 there came into being an oral agreement between Mr. Peyman and Mr. Lanjani, arranged by Mr. Moustashari as broker, that Mr. Peyman would buy 26 James Street for 55,000, to be paid by his selling 56 Victoria Road to Mr. Lanjani at a value of 32,000, the balance of 23,000 "equalization money" being paid in cash. lawoflaw. The plaintiff Mr. Peyman and the first defendant Mr. Lanjani are Iranian citizens who speak no English. This article is a study of judicial attitudes to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of land. 92, 95, Tindal C.J. 28 On which, see the interesting analysis by Steve Hedley, From Individualism to Communitarianism? He could not rely on the condition of sale and was therefore in breach of contract. 396, 397, Cave J. Bowman v. Hyland (1878) 8 Ch.D. 170, 172, where Jessel M.R. 59 The Civil Law in its Natural Order, 1.2.11.3 (p. 84 of Williams Strahan's translation of 1722). 445,447, ChittyJ. ;Rignall Developments Ltd. v.Halil [1988] Ch. 5 See Harpum, (1992) 108 L.Q.R. PEYMAN v LANJANI [1985] 2 WLR 154; [1984] 3 All ER 703 (CA) Lanjani had a defective title to a restaurant lease as someone else had impersonated him in dealings with the landlord. 152 After considerable doubt, it was settled by the Court of Exchequer inPurvis v.Rayer (1821) 9 Price 448, that a purchaser of leasehold property could insist that thelessor's title should be deduced as well as that of the assignor. 255 Presumably under the Conveyancing Act 1881, s. 14(1) (what is now the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 146(1)). 695, 698, Romer J.; and see, by implication,Pryce-Jones v.Williams [1902] 2 Ch. 617, 618, Swinfen Eady J. 4.1.1 and 4.5.1. 565; 4 Bro. This was because under the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 198, the registration of such charges constitutes actual notice of the matter registered to all persons for all purposes. 58 This interpretation was the work of certain later scholastics of the seventeenth century Spanish natural law school, such as Leonard Lessius and Luis de Molina: Gordley,The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine, pp. 639; and seeTravinto Nominees Pty. 183 [1895] 2 Ch. 261. 273 Re Haedicke and Lipski's Contract [1901] 2 Ch. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 248 Ther e was, as has already been noted, an allegation in the case that the land, having been acquired by the vendor without notice of the covenants, was no longer subject to them. 197 Emery v. Grocock (1821) 6 Madd. 375, 377, Grant M.R. The company had not complied with the Lands Clauses Act 1845, which required them to offer such land to adjoining land owners first. remedies for misrepresentation (case law only for cases that didn't Lecture 11 misrepresentation - notes - SlideShare 253 Faruqi v.English Real Estates Ltd. [1979] 1 W.L.R. Ghersinich. 1, C.A., a case concerning a sale of surplus land by a railway company. He had worked for the Iranian Railway Service and had managed a restaurant in Iran. 858, 864, Buckley J. 175. Bliss (1805) 11 Ves. 35 Unfair Contract Term s Act 1977, Schedule 1, para. The third defendant, Mr. Rafique junior, played little part in the negotiations and even less in the proceedings before Mr. Justice Dillon in 1981 and in this court. Render date: 2023-04-30T14:56:12.485Z There Mr. Rafique senior arranged that he would act for Mr. Peyman. 10 Ch. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 138 (1873) L.R. We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. 430, 436. 28 terms. 110 Blackburn v. Smith (1848) 2 Ex. 10 Two well-known works have been consulted by way of example: Barton, Charles,Modern Precedents in Conveyancing (3rd ed., 1821), vol. 90 Land Registration Act 1925, ss. The tenants did not at that stage investigate the vendors' freehold title, and indeed it is a moot point whether they would have been entitled to do so: Cf Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, s. 2. The non-annulment clause that is found in the current set of general conditions is, as it happens, moulded round the rule inFlight v.Booth and does not purport to go beyond what the principle allows: SCS c. 7.1. 1 Eq. Aim of rescission is to restore both parties to the position they were in before entering into the contract. ; Jones v.Rimmer (1880) 14 Ch.D. 16 DeJure Belli ac Pacts (1646 edition), 2.12.8 (p. 346 of F.W. 119 (1903) 19 L.Q.R. See tooPortman v.Mill (1826) 2 Russ. C sued immidiatly and got . 540, 555: will the purchaser if he completes, be in danger of immediate litigation? There is a vast nineteenth-century case law, much of it hard to reconcile, as to when a title would or would not be regarded as doubtful. 457, 496-497, Slade L.J. A 31 terms. at pp. Stephenson LJ, May LJ [1985] 1 Ch 457, [1985] CL 457 England and Wales Citing: Cited Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited HL 1970 The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. There were good historical reasons for this: see Simpson, A.W.B., A History of the Common Law of Contract (1975), pp. The purchaser had waived his right to investigate the vendor's titleby virtue of his conduct as it happens, rather than because of any condition of sale. Clause 6 provided for completion on 2nd April 1979, Request a trial to view additional results, Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and Others v Valero Energy Ltd (Pannone & Partners (A Firm), Part 20 defendant), TCG Pubs Ltd ((in Administration)) and Another v The Master and Wardens or Governors of the Art or Mystery of the Girdlers of London, SELF-DEALING AND NO-PROFIT RULES: COMPANIES ACT 2016, DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW, LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE MAY,LORD JUSTICE SLADE, Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court), Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 103 Cf. The Court of Appeal referred to Shanti Prasad Jain v Kalinga Tubes Ltd and others . 205206. 43, 46 Cozens-Hardy M.R. Mr. Lanjani wanted to get back to Iran owing to the troubles there, while Mr. Peyman wanted to buy a business quickly and get in control of the business and improve his situation with the Home Office". Th e contract contained the usual non-annulment clause. Section 3 . ; Turnerv. However, the vendor would be unable to obtain specific performance and the purchaser would probably recover his deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 49(2). at p. 790. 38 The Standard Condition s of Sale, 1st edition, 1990 (hereafter SCS). 328,337, Megarry J.;Faruqiv.English Real Estates Ltd. [1979J 1 W.L.R. ;Palmer v.Johnson (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 12. 98, Byrne J. 590, 599, Lord Langdale MR.; Harriett v.Baker (1875) L.R. 252 Walker v.Boyle [1982] 1 W.L.R. 130, 132, Jessel M.R. Burden duty of court to do what is practically just . Rogue lawyer advised C to affirm. 2 Exch. ;Re Belcham and Gawley's Contract [1930] 1 Ch. "There is no doubt at all", said the judge, "that both parties were extremely anxious that the transaction on which they had orally agreed should be carried through with the utmost speed. 2021 A - assignment for your assistance - Examiners - Studocu Peyman v Lanjani: Discharge by breach: Election If decide to affirm/ terminate not knowing your rights, you can change mind. 230, 234, Lord Romilly M.R. 14. 65 (1834) 1 Bing. 89, 91, Lindley L.J. Although his decision was reversed on appeal, this was only because fresh evidence became available to the Court of Appeal. 287;Faruqi v.English Real Estates Ltd. [1979] 1 W.L.R. 279 The present form of the condition, SCS c. 4.5.2, provides for rescission by the vendor where he is unable or, on reasonable grounds, unwilling to satisfy any requisition, and the purchaser refuses to withdraw the requisition. 129 (1881) 8 Q.B.D. 666, 670. Hostname: page-component-75b8448494-6dz42 III, p. 42. 4 e.g., Peyman v.Lanjani [1985] Ch. In the particulars of sale, it was stated that no offensive trades could be carried on on the premises; and that the premises were not to be let to a coffee-house keeper or a working hatter. 337, 340, Lord Ellenborough C.J. 39 As substituted by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s. 8(1). See tooJackson v. Whitehead (1860) 28 Beav. 520, Parker V.-C. (where a condition that the lessors' title will not be shown, and shall not be inquired into was held to bar an objection by the purchaser thai the lessor had acted outside its statutory powers in granting the lease);Re National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. In that case, a leasehold was subject to the condition that the vendor's title is accepted by the purchasers. at pp. On 2nd February there were two further meetings, morning and evening. Ill, p. 34. Misrepresentation problem question - Misrepresentation can be - Studocu 324, 328, Farwell J.; ReNichols' and Von Joel's Contract [1910] 1 Ch. 36 Peyman v Lanjani, Alacran Design Pte Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 110 at [36]. 603, 613614, Lindley. 224 Priddle v. Wood (1864) 4 New Reports 320, 321, Page Wood V.-C. See too the same judge's comments inKeyse v.Hayden (1853) 1 W.R. 112, 113, and his decision inSmith v.Harrison(1857) 26 L.J.Ch. 21 What was meant by circumstances was interpreted in Peyman v Lanjani. 123, 145146. 159 Harpum, , (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 403, 408, Romilly M.R. See too, Dick v.Donald (1827) 1 Bli. On the renewal of their lease, the tenants were given an option to purchase all the estate interest and title that the landlords then had in the premises. See tooPegler v.White (1864) 33 Beav. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact. Mr. Peyman, mindful of the time it had taken his previous solicitors to complete his purchase of 56 Victoria Road, agreed and all three met Mr. Rafique senior at his office, with a friend of Mr. Peyman's to act as interpreter, on 30th January. See too Kelly C.B. Must have been made before or at the time of contracting Roscorla -v- Thomas [1842] T represented after sale of horse "sound and free fromv ice" - untrue, but made after deal. 163 Brandling v.Plummer (1854) 2 Drewry 427, 430, Kindersley V.-C. See too,Jones v.Rimmer(1880) 14 Ch.D. 510, 520, Romilly M.R. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Application was made for consent to assign a lease. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 290, 294, Romilly M.R. 560, Kekewich J. Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49. 574, 579, North J.; 584, Cotton L.J. 205 (1886) 16 Q.B.D. ;Smith v.Colbourne [1914] 2 Ch. Rescission of contract - Legal Services India ;Rignall Developments Ltd.v.Halil [1988] Ch. This being so, I do not think that a party to a contract can realistically or sensibly be held to have made this irrevocable choice between rescission and affirmation unless he has actual knowledge not only of the facts of the serious breach of the contract by the other party which is the pre-condition of his right to choose, but also of the fact that in the circumstances which exist he does have that right to make that choice which the law gives him.Stephenson LJ said: I therefore feel free to follow the decision of this court in Leathley v John Fowler and Co Ltd [1946] KB 579 and to hold that knowledge of the facts which give rise to the right to rescind is not enough to prevent the plaintiff from exercising that right, but he must also know that the law gives him that right yet choose with that knowledge not to exercise it.. at p 149. ;Johnson v.Clarke [1928] 1 Ch. I. p. 83. defendant took the lease of premised under an agreement requiring landlord's permission, but D didn't attend the meeting at which the agreement was struck but the D sent an agent instead. 423, 429, Stuart V.-C. 177 (1830) You. 285 (1864) 4 New Reports 320, Page Wood V.-C. As it happens, Page Wood V.-C. decided Edwards v.Wickwar (1865) L.R. 357; 53 L.J.Ch. Mr. Peyman came to England on 1st December 1978 on a one month's visitor's visa, which he asked the Home Office to extend. 126 Such an approach has been adopted in relation to the vendor's obligation to give vacant possession on completion:Topfell Ltd. v.Galley Properties Ltd. (1979) 1 W.L.R. There is a vast nineteenth-century case law, much of it hard to reconcile, as to when a title would or would not be regarded as doubtful. Contracts in respect of both properties were signed by Mr. Peyman and Mr. Lanjani, and were exchanged; and they also signed forms of transfer. 13 Eq. 141 The virtual absence of any reported twentieth-century authority suggests that the point is no longer one of much practical importance (though in one case in whichWant v.Stallibrass might have been cited,Re Ossemsley Estates, Ltd. [1937] 3 All E.R. Revision:Contract Law 2 | The Student Room 93. 779, 790, Hall V.-C; and see,e.g., Hume v.Bentley (1852) 5 De G. & Sm. SeeSaxby v.Thomas (1891) 64 L.T. l, p. 314. & P. 339; M. & M. 193, Lord Tenterden C.J. This is undoubtedly so: knowledge if he represents the contrary to be the case". Note that in Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to rescind because, knowing of the facts which afforded this right . 77 Jacobs v.Revelt [1900] 2 Ch. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 258,C.A. 52 Essay upon the law of contracts and agreements (1790, London), vol. "12. 847, 854855, Maugham J. InCharles Hunt Ltd. v.Palmer [1931] 2 Ch. 56 seems to suggest that the vendor can rely upon a non-annulment clause even where he is aware of the defect in his title but has not disclosed it. 100 The contract was governed by The Law Society's General Conditions of Sale (1980 edition). ; Waltersv. 217 A reflection perhaps of the fact that the principle of estoppel was, prior to the Judicature Acts, accepted by courts of common law and equity alike. 124 Flight v.Booth (1834) 1 Bing. Harvey(1821) Jac. 774, C.A., it was not). 9 Q.B. 272 Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Co. v.Butler (1885) 15 Q.B.D. He gave Mr. Rafique senior a cheque for 25,000, but that was intended to represent 23,000, the equalization money over and above the value of 56 Victoria Road, plus 1,000 in addition to the 500 already paid in respect of Mr. Rafique senior's costs and another 1,000 paid in error and repaid shortly afterwards. 620,624, Kindersley V.-C.;Martins Practice of Conveyancingvol. I, pp. Pe yman v Lanjani (1985) - sen t agen t ra ther. 11, 17, Fry J.;Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v.Butler (1885) 15 Q.B.D. The equalization money offered was 20,000 increased by 3,000 either for the stocks of food and beverage in the restaurant or for the first quarter's rent from December 1978 to March 1979 paid by Mr. Lanjani. 524 (all decisions of Malins V.-C);Joliffe v.Baker(1883) 11 Q.B.D. Mr. Lanjani had acquired the leasehold property with the help of Mr. Rafique senior, who acted as his solicitor in the transaction, and of Mr. Moustashari, who managed a hotel in Queensway and was at one stage to join in the purchase with Mr. Lanjani. 72;Re Turner and Skelton (1879) 13 Ch.D. 244 Farnham Brewery Co. Ltd.v.Hunt & Co. (1893) 68 L.T. The vendor failed to disclose before contract that the lease was subject to certain onerous covenants. Mr. Lanjani and Mr. Moustashari seem to have had doubts whether the landlords would consent to Wellmack assigning the lease to an Iranian who spoke no English and presented the scruffy appearance which Mr. Lanjani presented. A finding that the title was good, gave the purchaser the same kind of assurance that he would now obtain from the fact that the vendor was registered with an absolute title: see Harpum, (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 263. 1. 4 e.g., Peyman v.Lanjani [1985] Ch. ), Domicile Developments Inc. v. MacTavish (1999), 45 O.R. Peyman v Lanjani. It is a title which is imperfect (e.g., it is one which the vendor is unable to prove by an unbroken chain of title for the period required by law), but the holding under which is unlikely to be challenged successfully, normally because any adverse claims have been barred by lapse of time. 515, 520, Blackburn and Quain JJ. 253, Mervyn Davies J. 54ff. ; 173, Brett and Cotton L.JJ. Untitled | PDF | Parol Evidence Rule | Offer And Acceptance - Scribd The point under consideration only arose if the covenants were still binding. Contract Law day | PDF | Misrepresentation | Damages - Scribd However, in that case the defect was not of such a substantial character that the purchaser could repudiate. 261, 271. 648649. The former may in practice be easier to prove then the latter. Exch. 117 (1873) L.R. 261, 271, Wills J.;Re Turpin and Ahern's Contract [1905] 1 I.R. 245 (1883) 25 Ch.D. 306, 309, James L.J. They did not disclose this fact, but sold subject to a sweeping condition of sale, which meant that the purchaser is to be content with a mere conveyance of such title as the vendor had (p. 11, Bramwell B.). An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. (N.C.) 463. 103;Allen v.Richardson (1879) 13 Ch.D. & R. 117, 127, Lord Lyndhurst C.B. 247 It was a right, granted by will and undoubtedly exercised, to take water from a well and t o use a kitchen for washing and brewing. 237 SeeRe Turpin and Ahern's Contract [1905] 1 I.R. III, p. 42. 46 The common form of the condition in the nineteenth century was in the following terms: That if any mistake or error be made or discovered in the description of the premises, or any other error whatever shall appear in the particulars of sale, such mistake or error shall not annul the sale, but a compensation or equivalent shall be given or taken, as the case may require See,e.g., Ayles v.Cox (1852) 16 Beav. 9.1 (Kelsey, p. 347); Pufendorf,DeJure, 5.3.2 (Kennett, p. 477). 14 Harpum, (1992) 108 L.Q.R. Mr. Peyman, mindful of the time it had taken his previous solicitors to complete his purchase of 56 Victoria Road, agreed and all three met Mr. Rafique senior at his office, with a friend of Mr. Peyman's to act as interpreter, on 30th January. Ill, p. 42. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. 458, 464-465; Stapylton v. Scott (1809) 16 Ves. 194 This was in part due to the introduction (by the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, s. 9) of a mechanism for resolving such doubts, the vendor and purchaser summons:Re Nichols' and Van Joel's Contract [1910] 1 Ch. 175.Cf. ; 158, Cotton L.J. 225 (1879) 12 Ch.D. 620;Besley v.Besley (1878) 9 Ch.D. Advanced A.I. 9 e.g., Dyer v.Hargrove (1805) 10 Ves. A court of equity will however refuse specific performance to a purchaser who, having some special knowledge, in some way misleads the vendor: see Foxv. 180 Ominously described in the particulars as a small safe investment. 45 The earliest decision that is known to the present writer in which this condition was in issue, wasDuke of Norfolk v.Worthy (1808) 1 Camp. Mr. Peyman bought the house in June 1978 and Mr. Lanjani took an assignment of the lease from Wellmack Properties Ltd. in October 1978. Evans' translation of 1806);A Treatise on the Contract of Sale, 2.2.1.234 (p. 142 of L.S. 196, Lord Romilly M.R. 40 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s. 11(1). Will never be able to put people perfectly back in the places they started . 's judgment contains a particularly useful statement of the principles at pp. On 3rd May, 1979 Mr. Peyman issued a writ against all three defendants. Abad title is anything else, and includes cases where the property is subject to some undisclosed but enforceable incumbrance; where the vendor has a lesser estate than that which he contracted to sell; or where the vendor has no title at all. 169, 178, Lord Eidon L.C. 2, p. 476.Google Scholar. 131 Re Metropolitan District Railway Company and Cosh (1880) 13 Ch.D. 1 Eq. ), Peyman v. Lanjani, at 1113, per Knox J; and Roden v International Gas Applications (1995) 18 ACSR 454 at 457, per McLelland CJ in Eq. Note that in Peyman v Lanjani9, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not lost his right. SCS c. 7.3. Other sets by this creator. Cushing's translation of 1839). 495.Cf. 214 Re Woods and Lewis's Contract [1898] 2 Ch. Pothier, on the other hand, states the converse rulethat all such clauses are construed in the seller's favour. 1 Eq. MISREPRESENTATION.pdf - Contract Law Misrepresentation A - Course Hero 261, 271, Wills J.;Re Terry and While's Contract (1886) 32 Ch.D. Leeds City Council (Local Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021, Johnston and Others v Tag Farnborough Airport Ltd: UTLC 15 Oct 2015, Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited, China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas), Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited, Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. 16 January 2009. Ltd. v. Christian-Edwards[1978] Ch. ;Wright v. Wilson (1832) 1 M. & Rob. 668, Fry J. 495, involved just such a composite condition of sale. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Although these authorities were disapproved by the Court of Appeal inPalmer v.Johnson, it was with some reluctance, and only because the decision inCann v.Cann had stood unchallenged for so long. 193 Marlow v.Smith (1723) 2 P. Wms. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 229, 230; andRhodes v.Ibbetson (1853) 4 De G.M. 1) [1895] 1 Ch. [1983] 2 A.C. 803, 813, Lord Bridge. This is the well-established rule of equity that a vendor of land cannot rely on a condition of sale, framed in general terms, to cover a specific encumbrance or other defect in title of which the vendor knew or ought to have known, and which he failed to disclose to the purchaser prior to contracting. 620, Kindersley V.-C, a case cited inWant v. Stallibrass, but which is not conclusive, because the vendor's title was almost certainly good. 134, 169175. 127 See,e.g., Farrand, J.T.,Contract and Conveyance (4th ed., 1983) pp. ;Re O'Flanagan and Ryan's Contract [1905] 1 I.R. Ltd. (1973), 1 O.R. 272, 274. 175 Hyde v.Dallaway (1842) 4 Beav. Exclusion Clauses and Contracts for the Sale of Land 290, 302303, Deputy Judge Lord Grantchester, Q.C. 457, 496497, Slade L.J. 1) [1953] 1 W.L.R. As GH Treitel pointed out that the only thing . 783, 792, Parke B. 14, 28, Lindley L.J. 533, 541, Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. 465, especially at p. 469, Channell B., and p. 470, Pollock C.B. Jun. Mr. Lanjani had acquired the leasehold property with the help of Mr. Rafique senior, who acted as his solicitor in the transaction, and of Mr. Moustashari, who managed a hotel in Queensway and was at one stage to join in the purchase with Mr. Lanjani. ;Re White and Hague's Contract [1921] 11.R. cit., 1.2.11.45 (Strahan, p. 84). 19 1 Bl.Comm.4142; A.P. 194, 201202, Astbury J.;Becker v.Partridge [1966] 2 Q.B. ;Re Terry and White's Contract (1886) 32 Ch.D. This was apparently because of the form of the Romanstipulatio: Treatise on the Law of Obligations, 1.1.1.7.97 (vol. 266 [1966] 2 Q.B. 963, 969, Walton J. 718, 722, Knight Bruce V.-C;Stanton v.Tattersall (1853) 1 Sm. 280, 322325.Google Scholar. 7677. It is a title free from incumbrances that can be deduced for the full period required by law. 3(1) and 13(1).