Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right.
The final amendment in this group, amendment No. 39, is unnecessary because, as I have just said, there is already judicial guidance on how to interpret what is obvious on a reasonably careful inspection. The approach to interpretation is the same as for the case law on the question of what does not have to be disclosed to a buyer of land prior to contract. The courts have held that patent defects in title do not have to be disclosed. In the Yandle case, the learned judge said:
''I think he''— the purchaser—
''is only liable to take property subject to those defects which are patent to the eye, including those defects which are a necessary consequence of something which is patent to the eye.''
If a legal easement or profit is one that a seller of the burdened land would have to disclose to a buyer before contract, it will override a registered disposition.