St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Payne
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) EG 45 156-158(3)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 November 1993. On 9 July 1990, S made a successful bid at an auction for freehold investment premises and paid a 10% deposit. The auction particulars contained a photograph including a lateral line with arrow heads marking the extent of the property. The left hand arrow head incorrectly included a doorway to the left of the premises which was not owned by P. When S realised the particulars were wrong, return of the deposit was claimed. In proceedings transferred from HC, S based the claim on misdescription, misrepresentation and the general discretion of the Law of Property Act 1925 s49(2). Judgment to S.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS51659 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 37952-1001 |
CA 15 November 1993. On 9 July 1990, S made a successful bid at an auction for freehold investment premises and paid a 10% deposit. The auction particulars contained a photograph including a lateral line with arrow heads marking the extent of the property. The left hand arrow head incorrectly included a doorway to the left of the premises which was not owned by P. When S realised the particulars were wrong, return of the deposit was claimed. In proceedings transferred from HC, S based the claim on misdescription, misrepresentation and the general discretion of the Law of Property Act 1925 s49(2). Judgment to S.