Authority therefore appears to be amply available in support of the proposition that prima facie there is an implied obligation on the vendor in a contract for the sale of land to make out the fee simple title to the property. When, therefore, an express indication or mention is made that it is the freehold or fee simple estate or interest which is the subject-matter of the contract, then it would seem that emphasis or stress is laid expressly upon a vital obligation or term already implied by law. Now, in the circumstances that the contract exhibit J shows the parties, the property or the estate or interest therein agreed to be conveyed, which estate or interest happens to correspond to that implied or prescribed by law; and also the price; but has left all other terms to be implied by law, it obviously appears that substantially the terms of the contract are to be implied by law, and the contract an “open contract,” the most important of the implied terms under which is the implied obligation to make out a good title, i.e. title to the legal freehold or fee simple estate or interest in the property.
BRITISH BATA SHOE CO., LTD. v. ROURA & FORGAS LTD. [1964] GLR 190 [1964] SLR (SC) 8 · Supreme Court · 1964 · ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC
Read it in the judgment