Sharneyford Supplies Ltd v Edge [1987] Ch 305
Contract – Land – Vacant Possession – Tenancy – Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 – Property – Occupation – Damages – Misrepresentation Act 1967 – Agreement – Business Tenancy – Occupation of Land
Facts
In this case, the complainant had entered into a contract to purchase land from the defendant. In this contract, it was expressly stated that there would be vacant possession on completion of the agreement and this would be ensured by the defendant. However, the current occupants of the land refused to leave and they claimed for business tenancy benefits under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. In the course of agreeing the contract, the defendant had not served notice to the tenants regarding vacating the land.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether there was misrepresentation in the contract by the defendant, regarding the vacant possession on completion of the agreement with the complainant. Another issue was whether the complainant would be entitled to a remedy if the defendant was found liable.
Decision/Outcome
It was held by the court that the defendant was liable to pay damages to the complainant for failing to make sure of vacant possession at the time of the completion of the contract, under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. He had not served notice to the tenants nor had he offered to buy out the tenant’s interest to fulfil the contract with the complainant. The occupant did have a legal right under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to remain in occupation of the land.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Sharneyford Supplies Ltd v Edge [1987] Ch 305 is a Court of Appeal decision and continues to be good law. The legal principles discussed — liability for misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and the protection of business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 — remain in force. There have been no statutory amendments to section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 that would affect the outcome described. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 remains in force, though readers should be aware that the Law Commission has in recent years examined reform of Part II of the 1954 Act (which governs business tenancies), and the government consulted on potential changes. As of the time of this review, no amending legislation has been enacted, so the 1954 Act applies as described in the article. The case summary is suitable for student use as a statement of the legal position.
