Buttle v Saunders
Open-knowledge reference entry
Buttle v Saunders [1950] 2 All ER 193 is an English trusts law case, which held that a trustee has a duty to gazump, or break an agreement which has not quite been completed into a formal and binding contract.
Facts
The defendant trustee agreed to sell Mrs Simpson some land for £6,142. A beneficiary of the trust then offered £6,500 for the same land. The trustee refused, since he had already come to an informal agreement with Mrs Simpson. The beneficiary applied for an injunction against the sale to Mrs Simpson, alleging the duty was to obtain the highest price.
Judgment
Wynn-Parry J granted the injunction saying,
The only consideration which was present to their minds was that they had gone so far in the negotiations with Mrs Simpson that they could not properly, from the point of view of commercial morality, resile from those negotiations.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Buttle v Saunders” as open-knowledge reference entry. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as open-knowledge reference entry. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 16, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q5003069. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1950.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Buttle v Saunders”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Buttle v Saunders primary sources, Buttle v Saunders archive and Buttle research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Buttle v Saunders”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Buttle v Saunders” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.