Cases - Mullens v Miller

Record details

Name

Mullens v Miller

Date

[1882]

Citation

22 ChD 194

Keywords

Estate agency

Summary

The defendant purchaser was told that the plaintiffs' property had been mortgaged for £2,000. Although true in fact, this was false and misleading in substance as it led the defendant to believe that the property was worth this amount. The security for the mortgage was not worth £2,000 and it led to litigation, concerning the validity of the mortgage, which was compromised by the plaintiffs paying off the lender and the property being reconveyed. The defendant refused to complete the purchase and the plaintiffs' action for specific performance failed because of this and other misrepresentations made to the defendant.

Vice-Chancellor Bacon said:

'A man employs an agent to let a house for him; that authority, in my opinion, contains also an authority to describe the property truly, to represent its actual situation, and, if he thinks fit, to represent its value. That is within the scope of the agent's authority; and when the authority is changed, and instead of being given authority to let it becomes an authority to find a purchaser, I think the authority is the same.'

Subsequently Vice-Chancellor Bacon stated that if the agent did state any falsehood on behalf of his principal which induced the purchaser to enter into a contract, this precludes the principal from obtaining specific performance.

Accordingly, specific performance was refused and the defendant's deposit was returned.