20 Eq. 183a; and see Samuel Comyn,The Law of Contracts and Promises (2nd ed., 1824) p. 26. 130, 132, Jessel M.R. This rule was eventually reversed by statute: Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, s. 2; Conveyancing Act 1881, ss. For a full discussion, see Harpum, [1987] Conv. I, pp. } The point was not settled without a protracted fight. 648649. The plaintiff had agreed to purchase the lease of premises in the Piazza, Covent Garden. 28 terms. 1. 153 Shepherd v. Keatley (1834) 1 CM. Wood(1864) 4 New Reports 320, Page Wood V.-C;Hume v.Pocock (1865) L.R. In Gordon v Selico Ltd (1986) 278 EG 53, it was held that painting over dry rot, immediately prior to sale of the property, was a fraudulent misrepresentation. ;Greenhalgh v.Brindley [1901] 2 Ch. ; Turnerv. ; 586, Lindlcy L.J. 963, 969, Walton J. Note that in Peyman v Lanjani9, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to rescind because, knowing of the facts which afforded this right, he proceeded with the contract, unless he also knew of the right to rescind. SCS c. 7.1., which is, by contrast, clearly drafted against the background of them. 290, 294, Romilly M.R. Misrepresentation - Misrepresentation Statements made before - Studocu 447, L.JJ. 198, 201, Jekyll M.R. Jun. His claim against Mr. Rafique senior succeeded. The two properties concerned are a freehold dwellinghouse, 56 Victoria Road, Willesden, N.W.6. 39 As substituted by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s. 8(1). Peyman v Lanjani: CA 1985 - swarb.co.uk 125 (1873) L.R. 2 For a full discussion of these twin obligations, see Harpum, Selling without title: a vendor's duty of disclosure? (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 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. 12. 156 Such conditions are undoubtedly valid:Jones v.Clifford (1876) 3 Ch.D. There Mr. Rafique senior arranged that he would act for Mr. Peyman. Examples of affirmation: C aware that might have rights to recover property transferred but elected not to pursue them. Both Mr. Peyman and Mr. Rafique senior appeal to this court from the judgment of Mr. Justice Dillon given as long ago as 9th December 1981. Agood holding title is strictly a bad title, but one which is in fact perfectly marketable. Lark v Outhwaite [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep 132,142. 675, 678; and inKnatchbull v.Grueber(1817) 3 Mer. 219 See generally the remarks of Fry J. inRe Banister (1879) 12 Ch.D. Rather better is Byrne J. Adoubtful title is one which the vendor cannot prove with certainty to be good. 565, 575, Sargant J.;Ridley v.Osier [1939] 1 All E.R. 50, 55, Malins V.-C. 241 [1901] 2 Ch. 250 In theNottingham case, Wills, J. based his decision on this passage from Dart (p. 156 of the 5th edition, 1875): (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 1 Eq. 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 Ch. 218 See,e.g., Harnett v.Baker (1875) L.R. 505, 509, Grant M.R. ; and seeMartin's Practice of Conveyancing (1844) by Charles Davidson, vol. Peyman v Lanjani (1984)-where the scenario arises that an innocent party has a right to affirm or rescind a contract he is not bound by the course he takes unless he is aware of the facts that allow him to make that decision and that the right to rescind existed. 196 M.E.P.C. ;Jennings v.Brunt (1869) 19 L.T. Peyman v Lanjani - Case Law - VLEX 792794041