Burges v Williams [1912] HCA 73
The misrepresentation as to sheep and fences, not going to the root of the contract and being compensable, was not a bar to specific performance. The vendor was able to give title, and actions after commencement (mortgage, attempted sale, partial sale with reconveyance available) did not show rescission or inability to perform. The appeal was dismissed.
- Parties
- Appellant; Defendant: Burges; Respondent; Plaintiff: Williams
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 November 1912
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Misrepresentation, Warranty, Conveyancing, Sale of Land
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Burges
Appellant; Defendant
Williams
Respondent; Plaintiff
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether specific performance should be refused due to misrepresentation as to the number of sheep and condition of boundary fences.
- 2 Whether the vendor's actions (mortgaging the property, attempted sale to another, sale of small portion after action brought) preclude specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi
The misrepresentation as to sheep and fences, not going to the root of the contract and being compensable, was not a bar to specific performance. The vendor was able to give title, and actions after commencement (mortgage, attempted sale, partial sale with reconveyance available) did not show rescission or inability to perform. The appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment