Burges v Williams [1912] HCA 73

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burges

Appellant; Defendant

Williams

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia

  1. 1 Whether specific performance should be refused due to misrepresentation as to the number of sheep and condition of boundary fences.
  2. 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