SNOW SEVEN

WHITE DWARFS

V/S
UPCOMING…
The Background
• After snow-white had come out of her coma, she looked for a place to stay.
• She intended to live there for 2 years after which the contract will be re-evaluated and
renewed if required.
• She thought of no better place to live, than with the dwarfs as she was familiar and had
already lived there.
• So a rental agreement between Seven Dwarfs (houseowner) and Snow White (tenant)
• Now White would live in their house on a rent for a fixed monthly amount.
• She would have to pay 2-month advance rent. And in return, safety, a fully furnished
house, adequate water and firewood supply would be guaranteed for her.
• A few months later, while cleaning the house, she finds out that the property is not as
furnished as she thought, there is water seepage in the walls and rotting walls have been
repainted by the dwarfs.
Major terms of the contract
• The case revolves around the misrepresentation of facts regarding a property
owned by the Seven Dwarfs on which Snow White comes to live
• Snow White filed a case against the Seven Dwarfs accusing them of
misrepresentation
• Claim of the plaintiff: The Dwarfs induced her into entering the contract by hiding
the fact that the property was stigmatized
• Thus, she demanded the contract be void and for her advance payment to be
returned
• Claim of the defendant: Snow White was trying to void the contract since she
found a better option elsewhere
Issue
• Based on the claims of the plaintiff regarding the safety of the house,
can the contract be voidable for misrepresentation?
Arguments presented by the Plaintiff:
Snow White
• A fully furnished house was what induced the contract
• Seven Dwarfs statements were half-truth
• Gordon V Selico Ltd (1986)
• The dwarfs hid the fact that the walls were painted again to hide their poor and
rotting condition. Clear case of misrepresentation
• Dimock v Hallett (1866) - half truth
• The Dwarfs presented half truth to Snow White with regards to the quality of their
house and the seepage and rotting.
• With v. O’Flannagan
• Dwarfs knew that there was seepage and rotting walls but chose not to disclose
the information.
Arguments presented by the Defendant: The
Seven Dwarfs
• She had a full house tour before signing the contract
• She had remained the tenant of the same house in prior period
• Admits poor relation with the neighbours
• Intend/found better option elsewhere
Horsfall v Thomas (1962)
She claims to be misled but it was equally her responsibility to check if her needs
were being met before entering into the contract
Attwood v Small 1838
While making the contract, mentioned how she was familiar with the house and had
examined herself.
Analysis
• There was misrepresentation by the Dwarfs
• Even if they thought Snow White knew of the defects in the house,
they should have mentioned it as it was her clear requirement that
the house be fully furnished.
• However, the Dwarfs also have a reason to believe that Snow White
has found another place to stay and hence is wanting to shift earlier
than the predetermined time - 2 years
Judgment and the Outcome
After a detailed analysis, the court claimed that the contract is voidable
in nature. The reason being that despite the basic requirement for
furnishing not being met, the other (and more important needs) of Snow
White are being met.