Thomas & Anor v GT Pryce (Farms) Ltd
The appellants were entitled to the land as described in the contract and plan, including the whole of OS 3634, as there was no convincing evidence of a common intention to exclude the buildings or any basis for rectification. The contract must be performed as written, with an abatement of price for land already conveyed to a third party.
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: David Thomas; Appellant/claimant: Christopher Thomas; Respondent/defendant: GT Pryce (Farms) Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 05 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Rectification of Contract, Construction of Contract, Land Sale, Boundary Disputes
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Thomas
Appellant/claimant
Christopher Thomas
Appellant/claimant
GT Pryce (Farms) Limited
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the contract for sale included the disputed land and buildings.
- 2 Whether the contract should be rectified to reflect the alleged common intention of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants were entitled to the land as described in the contract and plan, including the whole of OS 3634, as there was no convincing evidence of a common intention to exclude the buildings or any basis for rectification. The contract must be performed as written, with an abatement of price for land already conveyed to a third party.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Cross-appeal dismissed.
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