[1] The High Court of Australia has described its proposition as "a party to a contract cannot... escape specific performance by simply swearing that he did not understand it".
454 and 455 on the said tithe map, and containing by admeasurement twenty perches, more or less, now in the occupation of Mrs. Knowles and Mr. S. Merrick.This lot is situate close to the Lydney Town station, on the Severn and Wye Railway, and abuts on other premises of the vendors, on the canal, and on lands now or late of the Rev.
He deposed to the primary judge (Baggallay LJ) that he expected that two pieces of garden formed part of the lot, when they were in fact held by a railway company and not the vendor.
However, James LJ left it open for specific performance to be excused where: ...a hardship amounting to injustice would have been inflicted upon [the purchaser] by holding him to his bargain, and it was unreasonable to hold him to it.James LJ found that the defendant's mistaken purchase of the lot did not fall within this category of unjust hardship.
The High Court of Australia has relied on the case for the proposition that "a party to a contract cannot... escape specific performance by simply swearing that he did not understand it".