Waiver of objections or requisitions.

(o) Re Jackson and Oakshott, 14 Ch. D. 851; see above, pp. 164, 165.

(p) 1 Dart, V. & P. 160, 5th ed.; 1 Davidson, Prec. Con v. 564, 614, 4th ed.

(q) Re Deighton and Harris's Contract, 1898, 1 Ch. 458.

(r) Above, p. 72.

(s) Duddell v. Simpson, L. R. 2 Ch. 102; 1 Davidson, Prec. Conv. 564, 4th ed.; 470, 5th ed.; 1 Dart, V. & P. 161, 5th ed.; 183, 184, 6th ed.; 177, 7th ed.

(t) Hay v. Smithies, 22 Beav. 510; Duddell v. Simpson, L. R.

2 Ch. 102; Isaacs v. Towell, 1898, 2 Ch. 285. But the condition does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to order the vendor to pay the costs of any such proceedings; Re Spindlcr and Meat's Contract, 1901, 1 Ch. 908.

(u) Re Arbib and Class's Contract, 1891, 1 Ch. 601.

(x) Wards v. Dickson, 5 Jur. N. S. 698; Gray v. Fowler, L. R. 8 Ex. 249; and see the case cited in the previous note, where the original summons was taken out by the vendor.

(y) See Simpson v. Sadd, 4 De G. M. & G. 665: Sug. V. & P. 342 sq.; 1 Dart, V. & P. 130 sq., 5th ed.: 495 sq., 6the ed.; 508 sq., 7th ed.

(z) Southby v. Hutt. 2 My. & Cr. 207.

(a) Blacklow v. Laws, Hare, 40, 47: Alderson, B., Att.-Gen. v. Sitwell, 1 Y. & C. 570.

(b) Burroughs v. Oakley, 3 Swanst. 159, 168

(c)Above, p. 46.

(d) See the cases cited in the following notes: Haydon v. Bell, 1 Beav. 337.

(e)Dixon v. Astley, 1 Mer.

134: Stevens v. Guppy, 3 Russ. 171, 183; Bolton v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766.

(f) See Burroughs v. Oakley, 3 Swanst. 159, 169.

Where the abstract shows an objection to the title which would justify the purchaser in rescinding the contract, but he desires to complete the sale, if possible, it is frequently advisable for him to claim at once that he is entitled to treat the contract as broken and recover his deposit and expenses, but to state that, subject and without prejudice to his strict rights in this respect, he is willing to buy the property described in the contract at the price therein mentioned, if the objection can be removed, and to make pro visional requisitions accordingly. It is thought that if he so reserve his rights, the vendor cannot rescind under the common condition, if any requisition so made prove unwelcome (o). The purchaser must, however, bear in mind that in taking this course he gives the vendor the opportunity of retiring from the bargain, though only on the terms of returning the deposit, if any, and paying the purchaser's expenses of investigating the title down to the date of the claim to repudiate the agreement (p), and he precludes himself from enforcing the specific performance of the contract. But in most cases the vendor's desire to obtain the contract price for his land, and his anxiety to avoid paving the purchaser's expenses, are sufficiently great to make the course suggested effective.

Purchaser desiring to go on where the abstract shows an objection to the title.

(g) But not of objections, which are matter of conveyance (above, p. 164), as that the vendor shall release the property from mortgages; Be Gloaq and Miller's Contract, 23 Ch. D. 320, 327.

(k) Burnett v. Brown, 1 J. & W. 168: Bown v. Stenson, 24 Beav. 631, 637.

(i) Turquand v. Rhodes, 37 L. J. Ch. 830.

(k) See Flcetwood v. Green, 15 Ves. 594; Dixon v. Astley, 1 Mer. 133; Margravine of Anspach v. Noel, 1 Madd. 310.

(l) Be Gloag and Miller's Contract, 23 Ch. D. 320.

(m) Burroughs v. Oakley, 3 Swanst. 159, 169, 171.

(n) Pegg v. Wisden, 16 Beav. 239.

(o) See above, pp. 37, 168, 169, 184-187.

(p) See below, (hap. XIX. Sec.2. If after this date the parties negotiate but fail to arrive at an agreement to complete the sale, the purchaser cannot of course recover his expenses of such subsequent negotiation.