Tamplin v James
Encyclopedia
Tamplin v James 15 Ch D 215 is an English contract law
case concerning the availability of specific performance
for a breach of contract
induced by mistake. The case established that if a person enters a contract on the basis of a mistake that was not induced by the other party to the contract, specific performance will be awarded against the person if no hardship amounting to injustice would be inflicted on the person by holding the person to the contract.
The defendant
(Tamplin) signed a contract to purchase the lot for £750.
The defendant did not perform the contract of sale. He deposed to the primary judge (Baggallay LJ
) that he expected that two pieces of garden formed part of the lot, when they were in fact held by a railway company and not the vendor. The primary judge found that at the auction for the lot, plans were made available that showed that the gardens were not part of the lot, but that the defendant did not inspect the plans.
The primary judge made a decree for specific performance to compel the defendant's purchase of the land. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
(James LJ), Viscount Esher (Brett LJ) and Sir Henry Cotton (Cotton LJ).
James LJ held that the defence to specific performance for mistake could not generally be sustained where the vendor did nothing to mislead the purchaser and the mistake arose because of the purchaser's lack of reasonable care (here, the failure to inspect the plans). However, James LJ left it open for specific performance to be excused where:
James LJ found that the defendant's mistaken purchase of the lot did not fall within this category of unjust hardship. James LJ agreed with Cotton LJ (in obiter
) that where specific performance is not awarded because of a mistake, the court should proceed to award damages to the plaintiff in lieu of specific performance.
Brett LJ agreed to uphold the decree for specific performance, suggesting that a purchasercould not be relived from specific performance for a mistake that was not of vital importance to the contract and arose from the purchaser's own negligence.
Cotton LJ also agreed to uphold the decree for specific performance, holding that a purchaser could not escape specific performance for a mistake that "he had no right to make". Cotton LJ argued (in obiter
) (James LJ agreeing) that where specific performance is not awarded because of a mistake, the court should proceed to award damages to the plaintiff in lieu of specific performance.
The case has also been regularly cited by appellate courts as an authority on specific performance. The High Court of Australia
has relied on the case for the proposition that "a party to a contract cannot... escape specific performance by simply swearing that he did not understand it".
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case concerning the availability of specific performance
Specific performance
Specific performance is an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to award/ for awarding damages, and is classed as an equitable remedy commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential...
for a breach of contract
Breach of contract
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance....
induced by mistake. The case established that if a person enters a contract on the basis of a mistake that was not induced by the other party to the contract, specific performance will be awarded against the person if no hardship amounting to injustice would be inflicted on the person by holding the person to the contract.
Facts
The plaintiffs (James) advertised a lot of land for sale in the following terms:All that well-accustomed inn, with the brewhouse, outbuildings, and premises known as The Ship, together with the messuage, saddler's shop, and premises adjoining thereto, situate at Newerne, in the same parish, No. 454 and 455 on the said tithe map, and containing by admeasurement twenty perches, more or less, now in the occupation of Mrs. Knowles and Mr. S. Merrick.
This lot is situate close to the Lydney Town station, on the Severn and Wye Railway, and abuts on other premises of the vendors, on the canal, and on lands now or late of the Rev. W. H. Bathurst.
The defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
(Tamplin) signed a contract to purchase the lot for £750.
The defendant did not perform the contract of sale. He deposed to the primary judge (Baggallay LJ
Richard Baggallay
Sir Richard Baggallay PC , was a British Conservative politician and judge of the Court of Appeal.-Background and education:...
) that he expected that two pieces of garden formed part of the lot, when they were in fact held by a railway company and not the vendor. The primary judge found that at the auction for the lot, plans were made available that showed that the gardens were not part of the lot, but that the defendant did not inspect the plans.
The primary judge made a decree for specific performance to compel the defendant's purchase of the land. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Judgment
The three presiding judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree for specific performance. The judges were Sir William Milbourne JamesWilliam Milbourne James (judge)
Sir William Milbourne James was a British judge and Privy Councillor.-Life history:James was born in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales in 1807 to Christopher James a prosperous provision merchant. His cousin was Charles Herbert James, who later became Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil...
(James LJ), Viscount Esher (Brett LJ) and Sir Henry Cotton (Cotton LJ).
James LJ held that the defence to specific performance for mistake could not generally be sustained where the vendor did nothing to mislead the purchaser and the mistake arose because of the purchaser's lack of reasonable care (here, the failure to inspect the plans). However, James LJ left it open for specific performance to be excused where:
...a hardship amounting to injustice would have been inflicted upon [the purchaser] by holding him to his bargain, and it was unreasonable to hold him to it.
James LJ found that the defendant's mistaken purchase of the lot did not fall within this category of unjust hardship. James LJ agreed with Cotton LJ (in obiter
Obiter dictum
Obiter dictum is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision...
) that where specific performance is not awarded because of a mistake, the court should proceed to award damages to the plaintiff in lieu of specific performance.
Brett LJ agreed to uphold the decree for specific performance, suggesting that a purchasercould not be relived from specific performance for a mistake that was not of vital importance to the contract and arose from the purchaser's own negligence.
Cotton LJ also agreed to uphold the decree for specific performance, holding that a purchaser could not escape specific performance for a mistake that "he had no right to make". Cotton LJ argued (in obiter
Obiter dictum
Obiter dictum is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision...
) (James LJ agreeing) that where specific performance is not awarded because of a mistake, the court should proceed to award damages to the plaintiff in lieu of specific performance.
Significance
Tamplin v James is a widely cited case on the availability of specific performance. Brett LJ's judgment is cited in Voumard: The Sale of Land for the proposition that:For the most part the cases where a defendant has escaped [specific performance] on the ground of a mistake not contributed to by the plaintiff, have been cases where a hardship amounting to injustice would have been inflicted upon him by holding him to his bargain, and it was unreasonable to hold him to it.
The case has also been regularly cited by appellate courts as an authority on specific performance. The High Court of Australia
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
has relied on the case for the proposition that "a party to a contract cannot... escape specific performance by simply swearing that he did not understand it".