Walker v Boyle [1982] 1 All ER 634

• Plaintiff wanted to buy a house from Defendant and Defendant’s husband answered one of Plaintiff’s preliminary questions by saying that there were no boundary disputes, an answer which Defendant knew was incorrect though her husband did not.

• There was a contractual condition that “no errors, mis-statement, or omission in any preliminary answer…shall annul the sale.”

• Dillon J held that the condition could be made either not to apply to misrepresentations through construction (it didn’t apply where the vendor had knowledge of the true answer but gave/allowed a wrong answer to be given) OR since it was voided under the Misrepresentation Act and s.11(1) UCTA. Therefore he found for Plaintiff. 

Dillon J

• This term, if applied, would deprive Plaintiff of her normal remedies for misrepresentation and therefore under s.3 it is for Defendant to show that the term was UCTA reasonable, which Defendant had failed to do (tried to say it was reasonable since it had been widely used - not good argument). 

----

CW: this, together with Witter demonstrates courts’ unwillingness to allow terms that deny a statement of fact such as “no inducement” (though NB this isn’t true for “entire agreement” clauses which are outside scope of s.3- see Watford Electronics).

RELATED CASES

• Witter Ltd v TBP Industries

• Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson - Analysis (1)

• Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson - Analysis (2)