| 词条 | William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire CC |
| 释义 |
| italic title = force | name = William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire CC | court = Court of Appeal | image = Putdeksel van drukriool (Sewer Manhole cover.jpg | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1993] EWCA Civ 14, [1994] 1 WLR 1016 | judges = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = Hoffmann LJ, Evans LJ | transcripts = | keywords = Innocent misrepresentation, }} William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1993] EWCA Civ 14 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It concerns the exercise of discretion under s 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967. FactsWilliam Sindall agreed to buy land from Cambridgeshire County Council after they were told the council were aware of no easements. But a private sewer from 20 years before was found after completion. The important point was, however, that after William Sindall plc made the purchase the property market crashed and the value of the land plummeted. William Sindall plc sued for rescission for misrepresentation and common mistake. For mistake, it was held that the contract allocated risk of unknown sewers to the buyer (now rescission for common mistake is impossible because of The Great Peace). JudgmentHoffmann LJ held there was no misrepresentation and no operative mistake. However, had it been necessary for the exercise of discretion under s 2(2) he said that the three factors for deciding what is ‘equitable’ are,
Hoffmann LJ said that section 2(1) is concerned with the ‘damage flowing from having entered into the contract, while section 2(2) is concerned with damage caused by the property not being what it was represented to be.’ The point of s 2(2) is to have a different effect to s 2(1), so that representors are not unfairly oppressed when someone gets out of a bargain after a little misrepresentation. In this case he would have exercised discretion under s 2(2) so as to prevent William Sindall plc escaping from a bad bargain. Evans LJ noted the loss would be very great to the Council because now the land was worth a fraction of the purchase price plus interest, as well as it having to repeat the tendering process. See also{{Clist misrepresentation}}
NotesReferences
5 : English contract case law|English misrepresentation case law|Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases|1993 in British law|Cambridgeshire County Council |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。