ADD THE FOLLOWING AT THE END OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION (2) ("SLIGHT MISDESCRIPTION"):  In such cases it is possible that the vendor is entitled to require completion to take place [5a]; but because the purchaser is entitled to be compensated by way of an abatement to the purchase price the vendor is not entitled to require payment of the full (unabated) price as a condition of completion [5b].

ADD NEW NOTE 5A:  The position is far from certain.  In Johns v Deacon [1985] C.A.T. 13, the vendor contracted to sell land which included a fixture, but disposed of that fixture prior to completion; the Court of Appeal held that a notice to complete which required completion at the full price was invalid, and observed that no valid notice to complete could be given until the amount by which the purchase price was to be abated had been agreed or determined.  In Bechal v Kitsford Holdings Ltd [1989] 1 W.L.R. 105, there was a misdescription as to the size of the land to be conveyed; Brown-Wilkinson V-C (who had been a member of the Court in the Johns case) held that the misdescription entitled the purchaser to an abatement of the purchase price but did not invalidate the vendor's notice to complete.  In Clowes Development Ltd v Mulchinock [1998] 1 W.L.R. 42, Carnwath J attempted to reconcile the two cases:  loc cit, at pp.49-50.  In Donnelly v Weybridge Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 2678 (TCC), at [238], Ramsey J preferred the view expressed in Johns v. Deacon.

ADD NEW NOTE 5B:    Johns v Deacon [1985] C.A.T. 13; Donnelly v Weybridge Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 2678 (TCC).