William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1993]

Court: Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

Facts: William Sindall plc purchased land from Cambridgeshire County Council for £5 million. The council assured Sindall that there were no easements affecting the land. After completion, Sindall discovered a private sewer on the property and also faced a significant drop in market value, reducing the land's worth to around £2 million. Sindall sought rescission of the contract for misrepresentation and common mistake.

Issue: Whether the misrepresentation regarding easements justified rescission of the contract and, if not, whether damages could be awarded under Section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that there was no misrepresentation justifying rescission. Even if there had been misrepresentation, it would not have been equitable to rescind the contract, and damages in lieu would be granted instead.

Key Judicial Statements: Hoffmann LJ and Evans LJ highlighted that rescission is not always appropriate, especially when the misrepresentation's impact is minor compared to the overall loss incurred. Damages in lieu are designed to address the misrepresentation's effects without unjustly penalizing the representor.