Vitiating a Sale
It is rather startling to hear an ex-Lord Chancellor saying, “Thus I have told you what truths you must disclose. I shall now tell you what falsehoods you may utter in regard to your estate.” Of course it is not meant that morally any falsehood may be told, but only that there are some which do not, at Law or in Equity, vitiate the contract of sale. And it is curious to see the distinctions taken in these falsehoods. They remind us of the difference in Roman Catholic theology between venial and mortal sins. Thus, you may falsely praise, that is, puff, your property. You may describe it as uncommonly rich water-meadow, although it is imperfectly watered. In selling an advowson you may falsely state that an avoidance of the living is likely to occur soon. You may say, as a mere puff, that your house is fit for a respectable family; but you may not say, in answer to inquiries, contrary to the fact, that the house is not damp. And you must disclose a right of sporting or of common over your estate, or a right to dig mines under it. The reason of such distinctions as given by the law—valeat quantum—is, that some statements are cautions to purchasers to make inquiries for themselves, and that concealments, to be material, must be of something that the party concealing is bound to state. Although Lord St. Leonards (in his Handy-Book of Property Law) does not allude to the point, we might, had we space, while upon this subject, enlighten our readers by a set of cases in which the law relating to bugs is elaborately laid down, and explain to them in what instances the presence of these domestic nuisances in inconvenient numbers does or does not affect a contract for taking a house. But we must be content to refer them to the leading authorities in the pleasant volumes of Meeson and Welsby, where they will find the law fully expounded.—Saturday Review.