and asked the attendant what it meant. She was told that the relevant terms purported to exclude the liability of the proprietors for damage to beads and sequins attached to the garment. However, the truth was that the exemption of liability extended to all damage howsoever caused. It was held that, because only half the truth had been revealed, the defendants were effectively estopped from relying upon the exemption clause with the result that the plaintiff was able to recover damages. Also, in Dimmock v Hallett, where an auctioneer had misleadingly stated that two farms on a freehold property were let, whereas in fact the tenant farmers had served notice to quit. As Sir G Turner LJ stated (at p 28), ‘The purchaser ... would be led to suppose ... that he was purchasing with continuing tenancies at fixed rents, whereas he would, in fact, have to find tenants immediately after the completion of his purchase’. Intriguingly, his Lordship also noted that ‘The Court requires good faith in conditions of sale, and looks strictly at the statements contained in them’. Moreover, once a person has started to speak, he comes under a duty to keep the other party appraised of any subsequent change in circumstances of which the speaker becomes aware. In With v O’Flanagan, the defendant owned a medical practice which he

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-83

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

and asked the attendant what it meant. She was told that the relevant terms purported to exclude the liability of the proprietors for damage to beads and sequins attached to the garment. However, the truth was that the exemption of liability extended to all damage howsoever caused. It was held that, because only half the truth had been revealed, the defendants were effectively estopped from relying upon the exemption clause with the result that the plaintiff was able to recover damages. Also, in Dimmock v Hallett, where an auctioneer had misleadingly stated that two farms on a freehold property were let, whereas in fact the tenant farmers had served notice to quit. As Sir G Turner LJ stated (at p 28), ‘The purchaser ... would be led to suppose ... that he was purchasing with continuing tenancies at fixed rents, whereas he would, in fact, have to find tenants immediately after the completion of his purchase’. Intriguingly, his Lordship also noted that ‘The Court requires good faith in conditions of sale, and looks strictly at the statements contained in them’. Moreover, once a person has started to speak, he comes under a duty to keep the other party appraised of any subsequent change in circumstances of which the speaker becomes aware. In With v O’Flanagan, the defendant owned a medical practice which he

ABSTRACT

and asked the attendant what it meant. She was told that the relevant terms purported to exclude the liability of the proprietors for damage to beads and sequins attached to the garment. However, the truth was that the exemption of liability extended to all damage howsoever caused. It was held that, because only half the truth had been revealed, the defendants were effectively estopped from relying upon the exemption clause with the result that the plaintiff was able to recover damages. Also, in Dimmock v Hallett,13 where an auctioneer had misleadingly stated that two farms on a freehold property were let, whereas in fact the tenant farmers had served notice to quit. As Sir G Turner LJ stated (at p 28), ‘The purchaser ... would be led to suppose ... that he was purchasing with continuing tenancies at fixed rents, whereas he would, in fact, have to find tenants immediately after the completion of his purchase’. Intriguingly, his Lordship also noted that ‘The Court requires good faith in conditions of sale, and looks strictly at the statements contained in them’.