The principal duties of a conveyancer advising a purchaser of leasehold land have been already noticed (r). He must see that the lease or term offered by the abstract corresponds at all points with that offered by the contract. The purchaser is entitled to require the assignment to him of a lease from the freeholder unless the contract distinctly specified an underlease as the subject of the sale (s). And it is now settled that, notwithstanding the general rule that notice of a document is notice of its contents (t), a purchaser of leasehold land is entitled to object to the title if the covenants contained in the lease are more onerous or stringent than those usually inserted in leases of like character to that purchased, unless the existence of such covenants were brought to his notice at the time of entering into the contract, either through express mention therein or through his having been afforded an opportunity of inspecting the contents of the lease (u). So we have seen that the existence of a considerable ground rent not mentioned in the particulars on the sale of houses held for a long term of years may be an objection to the title (x). A stipulation is frequently made on the sale of leaseholds by auction that the lease will be produced at the sale and may be inspected at the office of the vendor's solicitors at any time within a week previously, to the sale, and that any purchaser shall be deemed to have full notice of the contents of the lease, whether he avail himself of the opportunity of inspection or not (y). A purchaser of leaseholds buying under such a stipulation as this cannot, of course, object to anything contained in the lease (z); unless, indeed, an actual misrepresentation has been made by the vendor, in the particulars of sale or otherwise, as to the contents of the lease (a).

Leaseholds.

(o) See Hall v. Bromley, 35 Ch. D. 652.

(p) See above, pp. 228 - 230, 233 235.

(q).Stat. 7 Will. IV. & 1

Vict. c. 26, s. 4; Londesborough v. Foster, 3 B. & S. 805.

(r) Above, pp. 100, 101, and n.(i), 163, 164, 176.

(s) Above, p. 101, n. (i).

When the property purchased is held for a term of years determinable by re-entry for non-payment of rent or breach of covenant (b), it is, of course, important to ascertain that no cause of forfeiture under the condition of re-entry has occurred. Before the year 1882, the purchaser in such a case was entitled, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, to require evidence that all the covenants and conditions in the lease had been duly performed and observed up to the date of the actual completion of the contract (c). It was, however, usually stipulated that production of the receipt for the last payment of rent due before the completion of the sale should be conclusive evidence of this (d). At the present time, the purchaser's rights in this respect are regulated, in the absence of special stipulation, by the following provision of the Conveyancing Act of 1881 (e): - Where land sold is held by lease (not including underlease), the purchaser shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that the lease was duly granted; and on production of the receipt for the last payment due for rent under the lease before the date of actual completion of the purchase, he shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that all the covenants and provisions of the lease have been duly performed and observed up to the date of actual completion of the purchase. This provision is less stringent than the special stipulation previously usual, which was construed as obliging the purchaser to accept the title, notwithstanding the existence of a continuing breach of the covenants in the lease ( f). The stipulation contained in the Act only binds the purchaser to assume, unless the contrary shall appear, that the covenants have been performed, and does not preclude him from objecting to the title on the ground that a cause of forfeiture has occurred, if it appear that a breach of covenant has in fact been committed and has not been waived (g). Receipt of rent by a landlord is a waiver of forfeiture for breaches of covenant which have occurred and been brought to his notice before the rent became due (h): but it is not a waiver on account of breaches of which he had no notice (i), or subsequent breaches (k). Production of a receipt for rent is not, therefore, in itself complete evidence of any waiver of a breach of covenant. But a purchaser buying under the present statutory stipulation must, on production of the last receipt for rent in accordance therewith, assume (unless the contrary appear) that the covenants have been duly performed, not only prior to the receipt of rent, but up to the date of actual completion of the purchase. It has been decided that the statutory stipulation does not apply where the land sold is held under a lease for years at a peppercorn rent, or indeed at any other rent in kind and not in money; in which case the purchaser has the same right to require strict evidence of the performance of the lessee's covenants as in the case of an open contract made before the year 1882 (l).

Evidence that a lease held subject to a

(t) Above, p. 215.

(u) Reeve v. Berridge,20Q.B.I). 523: Midgley v. Smith, 1893, \V. N.120; Re While and Smith's Contract, 1896, 1 Ch. 637; Moly-neux v. Hawtrey, 1903, 2 K. B. 487: see also Nouaille v. Flight, 7 Beav.521; Re Davis to Cavey, 40 Ch. D. 601; above, p. 205. This is so even though the contract provide that the vendor's title shall be accepted: Re Haedicke and Lipski's Contract, 1901, 2 Ch. 666.

(x) Above pp. 175, 176.

(y) 1 Key & Elph Prec. Conv-. 270, 4th ed.; 259, u. (c), 8th ed.

(z) See Laurie v.. Lees, 14 Ch.D. 249, 252, 257.

(a) See J".//, v. Corpe, 3 My.& K. 269; Flight v. Barton, ib. 282 above, p. 199.

Condition of re-entry has not determined.

(b) Wms. Real Prop. 337, 513, 21st ed.

(c) 1 Davidson, Prec. Conv. .536, 4th ed.; Palmer v. Goren, 25 L. J. Ch. 841.