Hardy & Anor v Griffiths & Anor [2014] EWHC 3947 (Ch) (02 December 2014)

Hardy & Anor v Griffiths & Anor [2014] EWHC 3947 (Ch) (02 December 2014)

The defendants were not entitled to rescind the contract as there was no actionable misrepresentation or breach by the claimants; the exclusion clause was fair and reasonable; the claimants were entitled to forfeit the deposit and claim further sums under the contract and collateral agreement.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3947 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alan Ronald Geoffrey Hardy; Claimant: Juliet Caroline Hardy; Defendant: William Robert Griffiths; Defendant: Angela May Griffiths
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Contract Dispute / High Court Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Misrepresentation, Deposit Forfeiture, Breach of Contract, Collateral Agreement, Exclusion Clauses, Caveat Emptor
Contract Law Property Law Rescission of Contract Misrepresentation Deposit Forfeiture Breach of Contract Collateral Agreement Exclusion Clauses +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Ronald Geoffrey Hardy

Claimant

Juliet Caroline Hardy

Claimant

William Robert Griffiths

Defendant

Angela May Griffiths

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Contract Dispute / High Court Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were entitled to rescind the contract for misrepresentation or breach
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were entitled to forfeit the deposit and claim further sums
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion clause (special condition 10) was fair and reasonable under the Misrepresentation Act 1967

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not entitled to rescind the contract as there was no actionable misrepresentation or breach by the claimants; the exclusion clause was fair and reasonable; the claimants were entitled to forfeit the deposit and claim further sums under the contract and collateral agreement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Declaration that the contract was validly rescinded by the claimants
  • Forfeiture of the £150,000 deposit to the claimants