The Gazette 1955-58

188 / 324

it was a contract induced by an innocent misrepre
sentation, and I cannot say that it was not with
reference to a substantial matter. The purchaser
had been told that the town and country planning
scheme which was in existence (which might, of
course, have been seen by either party if they had
wanted, to) would only affect this garage to the
extent of two or three feet; but in fact it would
almost have wiped it out of existence, if it has not
entirely done so. I cannot say that a representation
of that sort is not a representation on a substantial
matter; and, although it was an innocent mis
representation, it was a representation of which the
purchaser was entitled to take advantage while the
contract was still executory and to say that she would
not carry out the bargain because it had been induced
by the representation."
The case shows how undesirable it is for persons
who have something to sell to sign a form put
before them by agents without understanding it, and
it emphasises the necessity for taking legal advice before a
contract for the sale of property is signed. I have said
nothing on the general duties of agents as to town
and country planning matters. I would, however,
point out that the claim of the agents in this case
is for no less a sum than £387 ios., and I cannot see
how they can be justified in placing on the defendant
any responsibility for that which she said about
what might happen to the frontage of the premises.
She at least gave them some information which
might have led to their making inquiries if they
thought it right to do so.
Per Morris L.J. :—" Mr. Wade, however, pro
ceeded to give a positive answer. He did not even
leave it to the defendant to answer. He did not even
say that he only knew what the defendant had told
him. Once that question was asked, it seems to
me that Mr. Wade must have known that no con
tract would go through if the answer given was
incorrect. He ought at least to have warned Mrs.
Pritchard that the answer to the question ought to
be accurately ascertained. If an answer was being
given, then it ought to have been verified before
a contract was signed and, if necessary, the advice
of solicitors sought. But a contract was signed
there and then. If commission was to be earned
when a binding contract was made, then I should
have thought that solicitors would have been
introduced to give their skilled assistance as to the
terms and form of any proposed contract. This
case perhaps illustrates how troubles and difficulties may
arise if estate agents do work, that is to say, the work of
arranging binding contracts, which is more appropriately
try solicitors.
Per Romer L.J. :—If they knew nothing, what
business Mr. Wade had to give a definite and
unequivocal answer in reply to Mr. Pritchard's
query I am at a loss to understand, and it appears
to me that he was a great deal more at fault in doing
that without making the slightest attempt to ascertain
what the answer was. Not knowing what the
position was, as appears from that letter, he should
have said to Mr. Pritchard : " I honestly do not
know. You had better find out. You had better
make the usual search." I do not think there is any
ground for founding a cause of action by the
plaintiffs against the defendant on those lines.
In conclusion, and in agreement with my brethren,
I think it is highly undesirable that estate agents should
hurry people into signing contracts without legal advice
and especially when they attach to those contracts con
ditions of sale which neither the parties nor the agents
themselves in the least understand. The agents^ function
is to find purchasers for property and not to produce
contracts and persuade the parties into signing them.
(Peter Long and Partners v. Burns (1956) 3. All
E.R. 207).
I
On taxation between solicitor and own client costs
allowed should be those that were proper for attain
ment of justice or for defending the rights of the
party.
Solicitors acted for a company who were defen
dants in an action in the Queen's Bench Division
for the price of toy aircraft manufactured to the
company's design and who counterclaimed for
damages for faulty manufacture. The proceedings
involved complicated technical matters, and the
g lasted seven days. The company having
into liquidation the liquidator obtained an
on the solicitors to deliver an itemised bill
of costs and for taxation of the bill as between
solicitor and own client. The order for taxation did
not specify where the taxation should take place,
and it in fact took place in the Companies Winding-
Up Department. Objections (Nos. 1-4) having
been taken to disallowances or reductions of certain
items charged in the bill (including certain fees paid)
the registrar disallowed the objections for various
reasons but did not state in his answers that he had
considered the amounts of the items not to be
proper and did not distinguish between what might
be necessary on the one hand as between party and
party and what might be proper on the other hand
to be allowed to a solicitor as against his own client.
In relation to charges for attending court the
So