Pearson v Wynn

Pearson sold to Wynn his horticultural land for $159,000.

Prior to the sale, Pearson had misrepresented that the land was fully irrigated, when in fact that the irrigation system need a further $9,500 to $10,000 spent on it.

When this came to the notice of Wynn, he cancelled the contract.

Pearson sued to have the contract honoured.

The court held that whilst the $9,500 - $10,000 in costs were not substantial in itself, that the inconvenience of the work that was entailed, met the standard required under either s 7 (4)(b)(I) or s7(4)(b)(ii). Williamson J stated "Matters in relation to this term not necessarily relate only to value or money, but may also involve features which confer a benefit or cast a burden of some substantive on a party".