540 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SALE. 



sentatiou on the part of the vendor was alleged ; but it was said he did 

 not communicate the fact of this charge on the living ; that could not 

 afifect the sale of the advowson, the value of which it did not diminish 

 but rather increased, for tlie living was more valuable for having a good 

 parsonage-house on the land, than if the house was bad or there was 

 none. The case of BurneJJ v. Brown (1 J. & W. G8) did not apply ; for 

 there the right of sporting over the land did affect the value of the land, 

 which was the thing sold. This was a case where the maxim Caveat 

 emptor applied ; and the purchaser not having made himself acquainted 

 with all the facts, which he might easily have done, had no title now to 

 ask for compensation." And j;>er Cramvorth Lord : " Before the law 

 was altered as to titles, I question much whether, if the vendor of an 

 advowson knew that there was a modus affecting a particular farm, he 

 was bound to say a word about it " {Edwards Wood v. MarjorihaiiliU and 

 Others). 



Inaccurate particulars of sale. — If particulars inaccurately describe 

 premises to be sold by auction, the Court will refuse to direct a specific 

 performance of the contract, though the error might have been ascer- 

 tained on a minute inspection of the particulars and conditions of sale ; 

 and the evidence of an auctioneer is admissible to state what took place 

 at the auction. In the disputed lot (which was described as " an undi- 

 vided moiety in freehold plantation, &c."), the particulars said, " the 

 apportioned rent of this lot is £16 per annum," whereas it was only £8, 

 but the error was patent on such particulars. And 2)er Sir J. Romillij 

 M.R. : " I regret I cannot make a decree for specific performance, 

 because the defendant has occasioned this suit by refusing the offer 

 made to put an end to the contract. In case of mistake, the principle 

 upon which the Court proceeds is, that if it appears upon the evidence 

 that there was in the description of the property a mistake, which a 

 person might londfide make, and he swears positively that he did make 

 such mistake, the evidence not being contradicted, this Court cannot 

 enforce the specific performance of the contract against him. If there 

 is no ground for the mistake, if no man with his senses about him could 

 have misapprehended the description or character of the parcels, then 

 it is not sufficient for him to say that he made a mistake or he did not 

 understand what he was about. It is quite different from Matins v. 

 Freeman (2 Keen, 25; S. C. 6 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 133), where a man bought 

 one lot by mistake for another, and as soon as the auction was over, 

 stated that he had made the error, and refused to sign the contract. 

 Still the statement here is contained in the lot, and grammatically it 

 applies to the apportioned rent of the lot, and the lot is an undivided 

 moiety, and I cannot say upon that statement that it is not possible a 



