Estate agent – Trade description – Misrepresentation – Respondents trading as estate agents – Appellant trading standards service alleging false statements in course of business – Magistrates dismissing case against respondents – Whether words “approximately” and “STS” in sales particulars constituting effective disclaimer – Appeal allowed
The respondents carried on business as estate agents. An advertisement for the sale of a particular property stated that the property had “gardens of approximately 3/4 of an acre (STS)” and that the plot was “approximately 0.75 of an acre (STS)”. It was common ground that the abbreviation “STS” meant “subject to survey” and that the plot of the property was in fact only 0.4 of an acre.
The appellant trading standards service laid an information at the magistrates’ court alleging that the respondents had committed an offence, in the course of an estate agency business, by making a false statement in relation to the plot size of the property, contrary to section 1 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.
The magistrates’ court made findings that: (i) the difference between the description and the actual size of the plot was significant; (ii) the purchasers had relied upon the description and had had no independent checks carried out; (iii) the word “approximate” in the sales particulars relating to the property had not provided detail on which reliance should have been placed; (iv) the STS disclaimer had been part of the same sentence as the description and had immediately brought the purchasers’ attention to the fact that the measurements were not guaranteed; and (v) the respondents had done all that they reasonably could to notify the purchasers that the measurement was not guaranteed. Accordingly, the respondents were found not guilty. The appellant appealed by way of case stated.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The judge had erred in finding as a matter of fact and law, that the use of the words “approximately” and “STS” were an effective disclaimer which was as bold and precise and compelling as the false and misleading statements. The word “approximately” had not been appropriate to contradict a statement such as “0.75 of an acre”. On no reasonable view could 0.4 of an acre be deemed to fall within something that was advertised as being approximately 0.75 of an acre. There had been a positive statement as to the size of the garden. The fact that no guarantees had been given as to the accuracy of the measurement had not prevented the statement from being false. In all the circumstances, the judge had reached a decision that was not open to him.
Although the judge had been correct to find that the purchasers had clearly been put on notice that the measurements were not guaranteed but that had not prevented the statement from being false. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the magistrates’ court for reconsideration: Norman v Bennett [1974] 1 WLR 1229 considered.
Miles Bennett (instructed by Norwich Trading Standards Service) appeared for the appellant; Matthew McNiff (instructed by Norton Peskett, of Great Yarmouth) appeared for the respondents.
