Walker v Boyle [1982]

Court: High Court

Facts: Mr. Walker was buying a property from Mrs. Boyle and asked if there were any issues like boundary disputes. Mrs. Boyle's husband, who was dealing with the query, incorrectly said there were none, despite a long-standing border dispute with a neighbor. The sale went through with a contract that included Condition 17(1), stating that any misstatements about the property would not invalidate the sale. When Mr. Walker later found out about the dispute, he wanted to rescind the contract based on misrepresentation.

Issue: Could Mr. Walker rely on rescinding the contract despite the exclusion clause in Condition 17(1), and was this clause reasonable under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967?

Held: The court found Condition 17(1) to be void under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 because it did not meet the reasonableness requirement outlined in Section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Key Judicial Statements- Dillon J: noted that while Condition 17(1) might have seemed fair with proper legal advice, the solicitors hadn’t paid special attention to it. Dillon J pointed out that standard clauses like these, not negotiated between parties but rather established by general practice, don’t always meet the fairness test. The clause didn’t pass the reasonableness test required by the law.