(o) Sug. V. & P. 558.

(p) See 1 Dart, V. & P. 519, 5th ed.; 591, 6th ed.; above, p. 116.

(q) See above, p. 136.

(r) Above, pp. 131, 153; see also, p. 138.

(s) Above, p. 132.

(t) Above, p. 620.

With reaped to the parcels or description of the property sold, it appears that the purchaser is entitled to have inserted in the conveyance such a description of the property sold as will clearly identify the land intended to be assured. If, therefore, the description of the property sold contained in the contract be misleading, inadequate or obsolete, the purchaser should insert in the draft conveyance an accurate description of the land, according to its present condition, prepared from his own surveyor's report; and it is thought that in these eircumstances the vendor could not refuse to convey the land by the new description (b). It is, however, questionable whether a vendor, who has sold lands by a description accurately applying to them, and has completely discharged the obligations imposed on him of proving the identity of the lands described in the contract with those described in the muniments of title and with those of which possession is offered (c), can be required to convey and to covenant for title by a different description from that by which he sold. If he has satisfactorily proved title and identity, his only remaining obligation seems to be to convey what he has contracted to sell, that is, the land described in the contract; and it is thought that in such case he cannot be compelled to undertake the burden of verifying a new description of the lands (d). We have seen that the vendor lies under a double duty in respect of proving identity; he is bound, first, to identify the land described in the contract with that described in the title deeds, and secondly, to identify the actual land offered by him in fulfilment of the contract with that described in the contract (e). It is thought that, where the vendor's second duty cannot be performed without extrinsic evidence explanatory of the description in the contract (f), the purchaser is entitled to have such a description inserted in the conveyance as will on the face of it identify the land thereby conveyed with that of which he is to be put in possession. But if the description contained in the contract be of itself completely sufficient to identify the land sold with that offered in fulfilment of the contract, it is submitted that the purchaser is not entitled to require any other or further description to be inserted in the conveyance.

Parcels.

(u)Above, p. 106. (x) See above, p. 531. (y) 1 Dart, V. & V. 524, 5th ed.; 595, 586, 6th ed.; 550, 7th ed. . above, p. 628, nn. (l), (m). (z) Above, p. 616. (a) Hartley v. Burton, L. R. 3

Ch. 365.

(b) See Davidson, Prec. Conv. i. 82 sq., 4th ed. The above passage in the text (p. 557, 1st ed.) was approved of by Swinfen Eady, J., in Re Sansom and Narbeth's Contract, 1910, 1 Ch. 741, 749.

(c) Above, pp. 43, 144, 171.

(d) Above, p. 619, and n. (x).

(e) Above, pp. 33, 41, 43.

The important question, in what cases is the purchaser entitled to have the property conveyed by reference to a plan, can only rightly be solved by applying these principles. This question arose in two recent cases: but in each of them the judge evaded the necessity of deciding it(g). In Re Sparrow and James' Contract, Farwell, J. (after remarking that it was unnecessary to determine the general question whether the purchaser is in all cases entitled to have a description of the property conveyed by reference to a plan), considered that, where the description contained in the contract is insufficient or unsatisfactory as a means of identifying the land sold with that proposed to be conveyed in fulfilment of the contract, the purchaser is entitled to have the property more precisely described; and in the circumstances of the case the learned judge decided that the purchaser was entitled to have the description in the contract supplemented (without any restriction) by a plan (h). In Re Sanson and Narbeth's Contract, lie Sparrow and James' Contract.

Swinfen Eady, J. (after citing with approval the above-noted passage in this book (i) ), laid down that in all simple cases, in which a plan would assist the description, the purchaser has a right to have a plan on the conveyance, and that this follows as part of the rule that the purchaser is entitled to take a conveyance in his own form: though the learned judge declined to say that in every case the purchaser is entitled to have a description by plan (k). It is respectfully submitted that this pronouncement is unsatisfactory in principle; and that a sounder rule is suggested in the judgment of Farwell, J., viz., that, where the description in the contract is without a plan insufficient to identify the property sold, the purchaser may require it to be supplemented by a plan. It seems to be implied from this that no plan can be required where the description in the contract affords a sufficient and satisfactory identification of the land sold. The question remains however whether, when the description in the contract is - of itself (without extrinsic evidence) insufficient to identify the land sold, the purchaser is entitled to insist that this description shall be elucidated by a plan and not merely by a further and better verbal description. On this point the above-mentioned decisions are authorities in favour of the purchaser's right to a conveyance by reference to Re Sanson and Narbeth's Contract.

When is the purchaser entitled to a conveyance by reference to a plan?

(f) See above, p. 6.

(v) Re Sparrow and James' Contract, 1910, 2 Ch. 60, 62; Re Sansom and Narbeth's Contract, 1910 , l Ch. 741, 750, 751.

Bee the judgment in Re-Sparrow and James' Contract, 1910, 2 Ch. 60, 62, 68. Note however that in that case a plan was attached to the conditions of Bale, with a statement to the effect that it was for reference only and its accuracy was not guarantyeed. The purchaser proposed to take a conveyance by a general description referring to more particular descriptions in a schedule and a plan. The vendor desired to have the words "by way of elucidation and not of warranty" inserted before the reference to the plan; and the point actually-decided was that, the fact being that the verbal description was of itself alone insufficient to identify the land, the vendor was not entitled to insist on the insertion of those words.