In Grist v Bailey, the defendant contracted to sell a freehold house to the plaintiff for £850, subject to the rights of a sitting tenant. In fact, both the sitting tenant and his wife had died. With vacant possession, the property was worth £2,250 and the evidence clearly showed that the plaintiff’s agent would not have expected to be able to purchase property of the kind in question for £850 had there been no protected tenancy. Although the mistake was not of a kind which would allow the court to treat the contract as void at common law, it was held, nonetheless, that the court could grant rescission of the contract in equity subject to the imposition of a term to the effect that the plaintiff should have the opportunity to purchase the property at a price which reflected the fact that it was offered with vacant possession: Grist v Bailey [1967] Ch 532, p 538

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-132

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

In Grist v Bailey, the defendant contracted to sell a freehold house to the plaintiff for £850, subject to the rights of a sitting tenant. In fact, both the sitting tenant and his wife had died. With vacant possession, the property was worth £2,250 and the evidence clearly showed that the plaintiff’s agent would not have expected to be able to purchase property of the kind in question for £850 had there been no protected tenancy. Although the mistake was not of a kind which would allow the court to treat the contract as void at common law, it was held, nonetheless, that the court could grant rescission of the contract in equity subject to the imposition of a term to the effect that the plaintiff should have the opportunity to purchase the property at a price which reflected the fact that it was offered with vacant possession: Grist v Bailey [1967] Ch 532, p 538

ABSTRACT

Mr Baden Fuller has submitted that there is no difference between law and equity and no case which suggests that Bell v Lever Bros Ltd, does not cover the whole field, save what he describes as one casual remark of Denning LJ in Solle v Butcher, and he says, moreover, that Denning LJ himself resiled from his earlier view in the later case, Leaf v International Galleries. I cannot accept this interpretation of Denning LJ’s judgment, or indeed of Solle v Butcher as a whole. I think it was a carefully considered view of the relevant law and equity, and I do not think Denning LJ in Leaf v International Galleries resiled from it in any way.