Walker v Boyle [1982]
Share
Walker v Boyle [1982] 1 WLR 495 revolved around misrepresentation in the context of a property sale and the attempt to exclude liability under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Mr Walker was negotiating with Mrs Boyle for the purchase of Stall House in Stall House Lane, Pulborough, West Sussex, at a price of £105,000. During the negotiations, Mr Walker inquired about any disputes related to the property, specifically regarding boundaries, easements, covenants, or other relevant matters. Mrs Boyle consulted her husband, and he incorrectly responded with a 'no' despite an ongoing dispute with the neighbour, which he mistakenly believed had been settled. Condition 17(1) of the contract, incorporating the National Conditions of Sale, stated that no error, misstatement, or omission in any preliminary answer concerning the property would annul the sale.
Mr Walker initiated legal action seeking rescission based on misrepresentation. The key issue was whether Mr and Mrs Boyle could rely on the exclusion clause and whether it was reasonable under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Dillon J, in delivering the judgment, found that the condition ran afoul of Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. He concluded that Mrs Boyle failed to demonstrate that the exclusion satisfied Section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in this case. The judge noted that neither party's solicitors had considered condition 17, making it one that ought reasonably to have been known to or in the contemplation of the parties.
Additionally, Dillon J emphasised that the National Conditions of Sale, though common, were not the result of negotiations between interested trade parties. The decision underscored the importance of meeting the reasonableness requirement when attempting to exclude liability for misrepresentation under relevant statutes.
Mr Walker was negotiating with Mrs Boyle for the purchase of Stall House in Stall House Lane, Pulborough, West Sussex, at a price of £105,000. During the negotiations, Mr Walker inquired about any disputes related to the property, specifically regarding boundaries, easements, covenants, or other relevant matters. Mrs Boyle consulted her husband, and he incorrectly responded with a 'no' despite an ongoing dispute with the neighbour, which he mistakenly believed had been settled. Condition 17(1) of the contract, incorporating the National Conditions of Sale, stated that no error, misstatement, or omission in any preliminary answer concerning the property would annul the sale.
Mr Walker initiated legal action seeking rescission based on misrepresentation. The key issue was whether Mr and Mrs Boyle could rely on the exclusion clause and whether it was reasonable under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Dillon J, in delivering the judgment, found that the condition ran afoul of Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. He concluded that Mrs Boyle failed to demonstrate that the exclusion satisfied Section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in this case. The judge noted that neither party's solicitors had considered condition 17, making it one that ought reasonably to have been known to or in the contemplation of the parties.
Additionally, Dillon J emphasised that the National Conditions of Sale, though common, were not the result of negotiations between interested trade parties. The decision underscored the importance of meeting the reasonableness requirement when attempting to exclude liability for misrepresentation under relevant statutes.
