Walker v Boyle [1982] 1 All ER 634

A purchaser agreed to buy a house after receiving replies to preliminary enquiries which failed to disclose a boundary dispute. The transaction used standard sale conditions, including wording intended to prevent errors or misstatements in preliminary answers from undoing the sale. On learning the true position, the purchaser refused to complete and sought relief for misrepresentation. The seller relied on the condition and sought enforcement of the bargain. The court examined the purpose of the enquiries, the materiality of the missing information and whether the standard wording could exclude the purchaser’s remedy.

Could a standard sale condition prevent rescission for a material false answer about a boundary dispute, and did its common use establish statutory reasonableness?

Dillon J held that the purchaser could obtain relief rather than being compelled to complete. Preliminary enquiries sought information on which a purchaser could decide whether to exchange contracts, and the seller’s answers were capable of inducing that decision. The boundary dispute was material: the purchaser would reasonably have required its resolution before contracting. The condition did not provide an effective answer to the misrepresentation. Its familiar use in conveyancing did not establish that excluding the relevant remedy was reasonable under section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The court also recognised the equitable obstacle to specific performance where material misdescription or misrepresentation induced the bargain. The analysis concerned the actual statement and transaction, not an automatic rule invalidating every standard condition.

A standard contractual term excluding or restricting misrepresentation remedies is subject to the applicable statutory control; common use does not itself prove reasonableness. Material misleading replies to pre-contract enquiries can support rescission and prevent a seller obtaining specific performance.

Walker demonstrates that answering formal enquiries can carry legal consequences which general small print does not necessarily remove. It is useful for connecting inducement, statutory control of exclusions and the equitable discretion over specific performance. The decision should be distinguished from William Sindall, where the meaning of the qualified answer and the allocation of risk were central. A problem answer should first identify the representation and its materiality, then examine the clause and statutory regime rather than assuming the printed form settles liability.