## Facts

- A landlord and tenant executed a written agreement under which the tenant took the “eatage” (grazing/use of grass) of a specified field for a fixed term at a rent of £40.
- The tenant intended to graze cattle, but the agreement did not state this purpose and contained no express warranty of fitness.
- Unknown to both parties, the field had been top-dressed with manure containing paint particles; the tenant’s cattle ingested the grass and were poisoned.
- The jury found the cattle died because the grass had been poisoned by the paint.
- After the loss, the tenant stopped stocking the land, told the landlord she could do what she wished with it, and left before the term ended; the landlord resumed possession days later.
- The tenant refused to pay the agreed rent, asserting the land was unsuitable for grazing.
- The jury awarded the landlord £12, corresponding to the period of actual use rather than the contractual £40.

## Issues

1. Whether a lease of land, or the “vesture of land” such as eatage, includes an implied obligation that the premises are fit for the tenant’s particular intended use when that purpose is not stated in the agreement.
2. Whether the tenant may avoid or reduce rent based on unfitness for an unstated purpose, absent fraud or an express warranty.

## Decision

- The court held that no implied warranty of fitness arises on a demise of land or eatage for a fixed term at a certain rent.
- Because the agreement specified the subject land, term, and rent, and lacked any term describing the tenant’s purpose or warranting fitness, the tenant remained liable for rent according to the bargain.
- The tenant’s attempt to avoid liability on grounds of unfitness failed; the landlord was entitled in law to recover the rent claimed under the express agreement.

## Legal Principles

- A lease of land (including a grant of eatage) does not carry an implied covenant that the premises are fit for the tenant’s intended use when that use is not made part of the contract.
- In the absence of fraud, concealment, or an express warranty, the risk that the premises are unsuitable for the tenant’s unstated purpose falls on the tenant.
- An express written bargain fixing the land, term, and rent governs; a tenant’s unilateral abandonment after loss does not discharge the rent obligation.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the written rent agreement and rejected an implied fitness warranty for leased land or eatage, holding that a tenant cannot avoid or reduce rent due to unsuitability for an unstated purpose without fraud or an express contractual term.


Sutton v. Temple, (1843) 12 M. & W. 52 (Exch.)