Vendor of land breached contract for sale by selling title to a substantially smaller site

Contract law - Conveyancing and property law - vendor agreed to sell property in Mayo to the purchaser for the price of €290,000 - sale was closed and the consideration paid over – became apparent that the vendor did not own a substantial part of the lands he had purported to sell - a strip of land on the eastern boundary of the site which the defendant had purported to sell was owned by the Office of Public Works - 27.7% reduction in the area of lands than what had been agreed to be sold - planning history - discrepancies in the maps – vendor was clear in his evidence that he was at all times aware of where the correct boundary of his property lay and the inclusion of the OPW lands in the planning maps submitted by design consultants was an error on their part – unable to explain how the architectural technician made the same mistake in the subsequent planning application – vendor suggested that he could not read maps – Court had great difficulty in accepting the vendor’s evidence that he is unable to read maps – Courts satisfied that the reason that successive engineers acting on the vendor’s behalf included the OPW lands both in the planning applications and on the contract map was because the vendor believed he owned them – Court rejected the vendors evidence that when he gave instructions to the auctioneer to act on his behalf, he expressly told him that the drain represented the boundary of the site – auctioneer met the purchaser about the site – gave him a map – purchaser given the clear impression that the boundary of the site was the line of bushes on the eastern side - contract contained a special condition making the sale subject to the purchaser obtaining planning permission for the construction of four houses on the site – construction began – became aware that the OPW owned part of the land – had to revise plans -  standard Law Society of Ireland contract for sale – Court satisfied that the error which occurred in this case resulted in the property differing substantially from the property agreed to be sold - Court satisfied that the loss of over a quarter of the area of the site could not be described as “of trifling materiality” - General Condition 33 concerning errors applies - nothing that arose during property inspection could have put him on notice that the property he was acquiring was different from that illustrated on the contract map – vendor contracted to sell a particular site for a particular price to the purchaser and the plaintiff having paid that price instead of getting what he was contractually entitled to obtained title to a substantially smaller site – assessment of damages – Court orders judgment in the sum of €33,201.