Cases - Overbrooke Estates Ltd v Glencombe Properties Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Overbrooke Estates Ltd v Glencombe Properties Ltd
- Date
- [1974]
- Citation
- 3 AII ER 511
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Estate agency - Misrepresentation Act 1967
- Summary
-
Auctioneers were to sell a property belonging to the plaintiffs. The auction catalogue set out the particulars of the property and the conditions of sale which included the following statement:
'The Vendors do not make or give and neither the Auctioneers nor any person in the employment of the Auctioneers has any authority to make or give any representation or warranty in relation to [the property].'
The defendants claimed that, in a telephone conversation before the auction, the auctioneers misrepresented the intentions of the local authority with regard to slum clearance in the area of the property. They claimed that the auctioneers had ostensible authority to make this statement, and so refused to complete the purchase.
Mr Justice Brightman held that the general condition in the auction particulars (in the possession of the defendants at the time of the telephone conversation) negated any ostensible authority that the auctioneer had.
'It seems to me that it must be open to a principal to draw the attention of the public to the limits which he places on the authority of his agent and that this must be so whether the agent is a person who has or has not any ostensible authority. If an agent has prima facie some ostensible authority that authority is inevitably diminished to the extent of the publicised limits that are placed on it.'
The defendants also claimed that the statement denying the auctioneer's authority was subject to section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This states that a provision within an agreement excluding or restricting liability for misrepresentation is of no effect unless it is fair and reasonable. But Mr Justice Brightman stated that section 3 does not restrict the right of a principal publicly to limit the ostensible authority of their agent. He held that it only applies to a provision which would exclude or restrict liability for a misrepresentation made by a party or their duly authorised agent. Accordingly the plaintiffs succeeded in their claim for specific performance of the contract.