97 [1980] AC. 5 . ;Wright v. Wilson (1832) 1 M. & Rob. (N.C.) 463, 476, Tindal C.J. 11, 17, Fry J.;Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v.Butler (1885) 15 Q.B.D. Stephenson LJ, May LJ [1985] 1 Ch 457, [1985] CL 457 England and Wales Citing: Cited Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited HL 1970 The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. 447,449, Shadwell V.-C. 84 If the vendor failed to disclose an encumbrance, there may in certain circumstances be a remedy on the implied covenants. 261;Sakkas v.Donford Ltd. (1982) 46 P. & C.R. 111 Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 110 at [38]. ; 158, Cotton L.J. 56 The civil law origins of specific performance with compensation were well appreciated in America: Kent, James, Commentaries on American Law (1827, New York), vol. 77 Jacobs v.Revelt [1900] 2 Ch. "12. 169, 178, Lord Eidon L.C. 181 Re Scott and Alvarez's Contract (No. ;Re National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh [1895] 1 Ch. 495, 504506, Dillon J. extended the no-disclosure, no-reliance rule to a non-annulment clause which purported to exclude liability for misrepresentations. 1 C.P. To establish an . 213 See,e.g., the National Conditions of Sale (20th ed., 1981) c. 7(1).Cf. 219 See generally the remarks of Fry J. inRe Banister (1879) 12 Ch.D. Jun. Bowman v. Hyland (1878) 8 Ch.D. 601, Stirling J. 284 A mortgage is a removable encumbrance and need not be disclosed prior to contract if it will be discharged upon completion out of the proceeds of sale. Lord Eldon L.C. 1 Eq. The author cautioned however that the time specified should be reasonable, for otherwise, very slight circumstances would induce a court of equity to relieve the purchaser. 7 Every vendor of freehold property is bound to furnish to the intended purchaser an abstract of all deeds, wills and other instruments which have been executed with respect to the land in question during the last sixty years; and if this is not done by a perfect abstract, the vendee may object or require further information:Want v.Stallibrass (1873) L.R. 847, 854855, Maugham J. There Mr. Rafique senior arranged that he would act for Mr. Peyman. 261, 271, Wills J.;Re Terry and While's Contract (1886) 32 Ch.D. 54ff. Examples of affirmation: IP paid increased instalments without protest and then waited eight months after delivery of the ship before seeking recovery of the money. These dicta are strongly reminiscent of a passage in R.J. Pothier'sTreatise on the Contract of Sale, 2.2.1.234 (Cushing p. 142). 214 Re Woods and Lewis's Contract [1898] 2 Ch. 35 The particular circumstances in which a waiver may occur and the effectiveness of a non-waiver provision is considered in ch 6 at paras 6.86 to 6.87. P sued on discovering illegitimacy and successfully rescinded. 253, Mervyn Davies J.Photo Production does not seem to have been cited. rescind a contract for misrepresentation unless he knows the relevant facts and that he has a right to rescind. 491493. . 239 Reeve v.Berridge (1888) 20 O.B.D. 48 See,e.g., Poole v.Shergold (1786) 1 Cox 273, Kenyon M.R. The two properties concerned are a freehold dwellinghouse, 56 Victoria Road, Willesden, N.W.6. 156 Such conditions are undoubtedly valid:Jones v.Clifford (1876) 3 Ch.D. 1) [1895] 1 Ch. 68, perhaps the first case on the no-disclosure, no-reliance rule, just one year later. 35 Unfair Contract Term s Act 1977, Schedule 1, para. 521, 528, Parker J. 590, 599, Lord Langdale MR.; Harriett v.Baker (1875) L.R. Contracts in respect of both properties were signed by Mr. Peyman and Mr. Lanjani, and were exchanged; and they also signed forms of transfer. 153 Shepherd v. Keatley (1834) 1 CM. 249 The passage appeared for the first time in the 4th edition at p. 143. 2) [1895] 2 Ch. 98, Byrne J. 130, 133, Jessel M.R. 523 (C.A.). 1,8, Alexander C.B. 190. ;Rignall Developments Ltd. v.Halil [1988] Ch. There were good historical reasons for this: see Simpson, A.W.B., A History of the Common Law of Contract (1975), pp. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Morgan(1861) 3 De G.F. & J. 221 Elsev. It had been formulated in very similar terms some 16 years earlier by Tilghman C.J. 524, Malins V.-C;Clayton v.Leech (1889) 41 Ch.D. 211 Dimsdale Developments (South East) Ltd. v.De Haan (1983) 47 P. & C. R. 1, 1112, Deputy High Court Judge Gerald Godfrey, Q.C. The tenants did not at that stage investigate the vendors' freehold title, and indeed it is a moot point whether they would have been entitled to do so: Cf Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, s. 2. & G. 787, 792; and to like effect Shepherd v.Keatley (1834) 1 CM. ;Selkirk v.Romar Investments Ltd. [1963] 1 W.L.R. He wanted to acquire a business here in order that they and their children might obtain long term permission to stay here. See tooHenderson v.Hudson (1867) 15 W.R. 860, 861, Lord Romilly M.R. 426,433434, Grant MR. For the way in which the distinction between patent and latent encumbrances underwent a transformation, see Harpum, (1992) 108 L.Q.R. (N.C.) 370, 377, Tindal C.J. The same rule existed in the civil law: Pothier,A Treatise on the Contract of Sale, 2.1.4.211 (Cushing, p. 130). 194, 201202, Astbury J.;Becker v.Partridge [1966] 2 Q.B. f Misrepresentation 1. (p. 786) and Lopes L.J. ;Re White and Hague's Contract [1921] 11.R. 1) [1895] 1 Ch. 147148. ), The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine. J) [1895] 1 Ch. 209 For a discussion of the working of the section, see Harpum, [1984] C.L.J. See too, in an analogous context. 565, 575, Sargant J.;Ridley v.Osier [1939] 1 All E.R. 19, Wynn-Parry J. 119, 120, Lord Langdale M.R. ;Greenhalgh v.Brindley [1901] 2 Ch. 266 [1966] 2 Q.B. 116 (1873) L.R. 364. 124 Flight v.Booth (1834) 1 Bing. Harvey(1821) Jac. ;Re White and Smith's Contract [1896] 1 Ch. Northern Bank & Finance Co v Charlton [1979] 4 e.g., Peyman v.Lanjani [1985] Ch. 524 (all decisions of Malins V.-C);Joliffe v.Baker(1883) 11 Q.B.D. 1 Eq. cit., 4.3.32 (p. 354 of C.G. & C.C.C. 155 Phillips v.Caldcleugh (1868) L.R. 260 InRe Forsey and Hollebone's Contract [1927] 2 Ch. InRosenberg v.Cook itself however, the purchaser's solicitor does not seem to have been at fault in failing to discover the vendor's lack of title. Third Edition Vitiating Factors, Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. He wanted the house as a home for his wife and family, though her permission to stay here was refused extension by the Home Office. the other party to enter the contract. A court of equity will however refuse specific performance to a purchaser who, having some special knowledge, in some way misleads the vendor: see Foxv. He wanted the house as a home for his wife and family, though her permission to stay here was refused extension by the Home Office. 78 Cordingley v.Cheeseborough (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 2 second is where a significant lapse of time between contract formation and discovery of misrepresentation exists. Batten,A practical treatise on the law of specific performance (1849), p. 122. Kelsey's translation of 1925). 57 See Buckland, W.W.,A Textbook of Roman Law, 3rd ed. There is a vast nineteenth-century case law, much of it hard to reconcile, as to when a title would or would not be regarded as doubtful. 150,153154. 620, 622, Kindersley V.-C. 105 Martin's Practice of Conveyancing (1839), vol. It was a right seldom exercised by vendors: It must, indeed, be a very strong case of mistake for a vendor (who has full means of ascertaining with the utmost accuracy, what he intends to sell,) to succeed in obtaining compensation, or, in other words, an increase of his purchase-money, for an alleged mistake he has himself made: Martin's Practice of Conveyancing(1839), vol. 666, 670. 45 The earliest decision that is known to the present writer in which this condition was in issue, wasDuke of Norfolk v.Worthy (1808) 1 Camp. 20 See Gordley, James,The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (1991), pp. Peyman v Lanjani held that one cannot affirm a contract if they did not know that they could rescind it. 170, 172, Jessel M.R. 131, 143. ; 128, Bolland B.; Sellick v.Trevor (1843) 11 M. & W. 722, 728, Lord Abinger C.B. 423, Stuart V.-C. 186 If a purchaser will bargain thus rashly to pay for such a title as the seller has, it is his own fault if his money is placed in hazard by the insufficiency of that title:Wilmot v.Wilkinson(1827) 9 Dowl. We and our partners share information on your use of this website to help improve your experience. The final and simplest point is that avoidance and rescission after performance of the hire contract will be impossible: the claimant will have enjoyed the full benefit of the contract for services using a hire car . 230 Re Woods and Lewis' Contract [1898] 2 Ch. 95 For a modern analysis, seeSuisse Atlantique Sociiti d' Armement Maritime S.A. v.N.V. 495, 504507, Dillon J.;Sakkas v.Donford Ltd. (1982) 46 P.& C.R. 225 (1879) 12 Ch.D. However, the vendor would be unable to obtain specific performance and the purchaser would probably recover his deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 49(2). 255 Presumably under the Conveyancing Act 1881, s. 14(1) (what is now the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 146(1)). 379, 392, Tindal C.J. 20 Supra n 12 (Earl of Darnley), at 57. 666;Becker v.Partridge [1966] 2 Q.B. 17, 2425, Lord Langdale M.R. 487, 490;Osborne v.Harvey (1843) 7 Jur. & G. 339, L.JJ. Mr. Lanjani had acquired the leasehold property with the help of Mr. Rafique senior, who acted as his solicitor in the transaction, and of Mr. Moustashari, who managed a hotel in Queensway and was at one stage to join in the purchase with Mr. Lanjani. Peyman v Lanjani: Discharge by breach: Election If decide to affirm/ terminate not knowing your rights, you can change mind. 187 See,e.g., Freme v.Wright (1819) 4 Madd. 175, 184, Pollock B. Peyman v Lanjani. 779, 790, Hall V.-C; and see,e.g., Hume v.Bentley (1852) 5 De G. & Sm. at p. 181. or law made by one party to another, which, whilst not being a term of the contract, induces. 324, 328, Farwell J.; ReNichols' and Von Joel's Contract [1910] 1 Ch. 457, 496497, Slade L.J. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Aim of rescission is to restore both parties to the position they were in before entering into the contract. 150;Re Puckett and Smiths Contract [1902] 2 Ch. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Application was made for consent to assign a lease. 244 Farnham Brewery Co. Ltd.v.Hunt & Co. (1893) 68 L.T. Hostname: page-component-75b8448494-6dz42 D changed mind and no longer needed a courier C he contracted. The culmination of the article is a study of the rationale and precise manner of operation of this rule-which for convenience will be called the no-disclosure, no-reliance rule. 637, Stirling J. Ill, p. 34. doc2bee23. Mr. Peyman, mindful of the time it had taken his previous solicitors to complete his purchase of 56 Victoria Road, agreed and all three met Mr. Rafique senior at his office, with a friend of Mr. Peyman's to act as interpreter, on 30th January. 247 It was a right, granted by will and undoubtedly exercised, to take water from a well and t o use a kitchen for washing and brewing. Estoppel Peyman v Lanjani [1985] The non-breaching party may be estopped from choosing to terminate the contract where the position of the party in breach has been prejudiced during the time it takes for the non-breaching party to make his decision. Rascorla v Thomas (1842) Sta temen t has to be an inducement to ent er . 155, 171172, Danckwerts L.J. Mr. Peyman came to England on 1st December 1978 on a one month's visitor's visa, which he asked the Home Office to extend. 150 Seaton v.Mapp (1846) 2 Coll. 291. & Giff. Burden duty of court to do what is practically just . ; and seeMartin's Practice of Conveyancing (1844) by Charles Davidson, vol. 22 See,e.g., Re Banister (1879) 12 Ch.D. 596. 99 [1986] 2 E.G.L.R. But the second defendant, Mr. Rafique senior, who speaks a little Persian, played a leading part until Mr. Lanjani left England for Iran in February 1979 and Mr. Peyman fell out with Mr. Rafique senior, and went to other solicitors a month later. ), Domicile Developments Inc. v. MacTavish (1999), 45 O.R. 529, 536, Stuart V.-C. See too the decision of the Court of Exchequer inEvans v.Robins (1862) 31 L.J. This was apparently because of the form of the Romanstipulatio: Treatise on the Law of Obligations, 1.1.1.7.97 (vol. 190, North J. He gave Mr. Rafique senior a cheque for 25,000, but that was intended to represent 23,000, the equalization money over and above the value of 56 Victoria Road, plus 1,000 in addition to the 500 already paid in respect of Mr. Rafique senior's costs and another 1,000 paid in error and repaid shortly afterwards. View MISREPRESENTATION.pdf from LAW 402B at University of Notre Dame. 514, Sargant J. 39, 45, Byles, J.Google Scholar. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 3(1) and 13(1). 271 Heywood v. Mallalieu (1883) 25 Ch.D. 66 (1834) 1 Bing. Total loading time: 0 In that case, a leasehold was subject to the condition that the vendor's title is accepted by the purchasers. 35, 3839, Bacon V.-C. 172 Blenkhorn v.Penrose (1880) 43 L.T. 268 That is the present statutory period for the commencement of title: Law of Property Act 1969, s. 23. ;Winch v. Winchester (1812) 1 V. & B. 2) [1895] 2 Ch. He had worked for the Iranian Railway Service and had managed a restaurant in Iran. 185 Freme v.Wright (1819) 4 Madd. 15 e.g., Samuel Pufendorf,De Jure Naturae et Gentium (Barbeyrac edition), 5.3.1 (p. 477 of Basil Kennett's translation of 1729);De Officio Hominis et Civis (1673), 15.3 (p. 74 of F.G. Moore's translation of 1934); R.J. Pothier,A Treatise on the Law of Obligations, 1.1.1.3.4.33 (vol. One cannot affirm a contract if they did not know that they could rescind it. If prior to completion the purchaser shall be let into occupation of the premises hereby contracted to be sold, the purchaser hereby declares that he shall take such occupation as a mere licensee at will and will upon demand by the vendor or his solicitors forthwith vacate the same and shall until such date be responsible for all fixtures and fittings in the premises and shall upon demand replace the same if damaged in any way whatsoever and shall (during) the period of his occupation exercise the principles of good business management and shall in all respects keep the vendor and his estate indemnified against all costs, actions, claims, proceedings or demands in every way whatsoever". 131, 136, Fry J.;Re Marsh and Earl Cranville(1883) 24 Ch.D. In the course of specific performance proceedings, it was discovered that the vendor's title was wholly bad and the remedy was refused. 1 Eq. 74 Re Fawcett and Holmes' Contract (1889) 42 Ch.D. 774, 778, Greene M.R. 14, 28, Lindley L.J. Note that in Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to rescind because, knowing of the facts which afforded this right . We do not provide advice. On 2nd February there were two further meetings, morning and evening. 43, 47, Farwell L.J. 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 718, 722, Knight Bruce V.-C;Stanton v.Tattersall (1853) 1 Sm. Note that in Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to rescind because, knowing of the facts which afforded this right, he proceeded with the contract, unless he also knew of the right to rescind. 245 (1883) 25 Ch.D. Tirrena di Assicurazioni SpA v Grand Union 1, 2728, Menzies J., H.C.A. Tien Wah successfully argued, against the weight of authority (laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457 and the Singapore High Court in Chng Heng Tiu v Sime Darby Holdings Ltd [1978-1979] SLR 283, The Pacific Vigorous [2006] 3 SLR 374 and Wishing Star Ltd Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2008] 1 SLR 339), that an . 190, 197199, Millet! C.C. Statement must be made from one party to the contract to another. 8 Exch. 75 Re Fawcett and Holmes' Contract (1889) 42 Ch.D. 556, 562, Knight Bruce V.-C. See too Sir James Knight Bruce's comments inSymons v.James (1842) 1 Y. 110 Blackburn v. Smith (1848) 2 Ex. But the second defendant, Mr. Rafique senior, who speaks a little Persian, played a leading part until Mr. Lanjani left England for Iran in February 1979 and Mr. Peyman fell out with Mr. Rafique senior, and went to other solicitors a month later. 255,266267, Watkin Williams J. It examines the various devices which the courts have developed in order to limit the effect of such clauses and suggests that one of these devices has emerged as paramount: the principle that a vendor may, in appropriate circumstances, be estopped from relying on a condition by reason of his knowledge or conduct. The point under consideration only arose if the covenants were still binding. C.C. 648649. Cushing's translation of 1839). There is in fact long-standing authority for this proposition: seeTweed v.Mills (1865) L.R. 80, Lords Commissioners;Sheffield v.Lord Mulgrave (1795) 2 Ves. Mr. Lanjani and Mr. Moustashari seem to have had doubts whether the landlords would consent to Wellmack assigning the lease to an Iranian who spoke no English and presented the scruffy appearance which Mr. Lanjani presented. The purchaser had waived his right to investigate the vendor's titleby virtue of his conduct as it happens, rather than because of any condition of sale. 275 Edwards v.Wickwar (1865) L.R. 280, 321325. 290, 296, Romilly M.R. 190, 197, Milieu J. The learned authors of Phipson on Evidence, (supra), go on to state in paragraph 5 - 33, at page 131, regarding "equitable waiver," as follows: "Equitable waiver" occurs when a party lead another to believe that he will not rely on a particular right. at pp. A finding that the title was good, gave the purchaser the same kind of assurance that he would now obtain from the fact that the vendor was registered with an absolute title: see Harpum, (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 226 As the purchaser had bargained for no more than a good holding title, that was all that the vendor had to prove. 379, 384, Lord Westbury L.C. 7 Exch. shall not be completed then both contracts shall be automatically declared null and void and all deposit received thereunder shall be (repaid) forthwith to the respective parties concerned and each party shall bear their own legal costs throughout. 13 Martin's Practice of Conveyancing, by Davidson, Charles, vol. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The issue was as to liability on . 601, 607, Stirling J.;Re Scott and Alvarez's Contract (No. 162,51 L.J.Q.B. 205 (1886) 16 Q.B.D. at pp. On 2nd February there were two further meetings, morning and evening. [1983] 2 A.C. 803, 813, Lord Bridge. 245. See by way of example, Orange to Wright(1885) 54 L.J.Ch. 207, 209, Parke J.;Robinson v.Musgrove (1838) 2 M. & Rob. 445449.Google Scholar. Exch. 574, 579, North J.; 584, Cotton L.J. by Stein, P.G. ; 586, Lindlcy L.J. 287 (1888) 58 L.T. 180 Ominously described in the particulars as a small safe investment. This rule was eventually reversed by statute: Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874, s. 2; Conveyancing Act 1881, ss. The plaintiff repudiated the contract and successfully sued to recover his deposit. 7 Exch. Ill, p. 28.Google Scholar See too Dart, J.H., Vendors and Purchasers (1st ed., 1851), p. 70.Google Scholar. 16 January 2009. Carter (1869) L.R. in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:Stoddart v.Smith, 5 Binney 355, 363 (1812). 620, Kindersley V.-C, a case cited inWant v. Stallibrass, but which is not conclusive, because the vendor's title was almost certainly good. 269 In such circumstances, it would be the purchaser who failed to complete who would be in breach of contract, not the vendor. said that the test was whether there was the slightest reasonable chance of any such lawsuit being instituted, but this seems over-generous as to the degree of likelihood that is required. 130, Jessel M.R. 8) Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457 9) Leaf v International Galleries . 109, 118119, North J. 183 [1895] 2 Ch. Cited China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas) HL 1979 A hire clause was in bespoke terms providing for withdrawal in default of payment. 175.Cf. 99, 103, Lord Halsbury L.C. 718, 723, Lord Campbell L.C. (C.A. Roythorne & Co (Roythornes), a firm of solicitors, acted for Mr & Mrs Dring and, following his death on 28 September 2008, the executors of Mr Dring, Mr Pola and Mr Doubleday. 357; 53 L.J.Ch. 109 Oakden v.Pike (1865) 34 L.J.Ch. But it has not been suggested that on 2nd February the transfers were delivered in escrow or otherwise. 81 The terms of the contract of sale will normally be considered to have been merged in and superseded by the deed of conveyance which carries out the contract:Leggott v.Barrett (1880) 15 Ch.D. In most cases, if the purchaser's solicitor failed to discover a serious flaw in the vendor's titleapparent from the abstractwithin the time allowed by the condition, he would be negligent, and therefore liable in damages to his client. 174 Warren v.Richardson (1830) You. 130 The chronology can be worked out from the dates given in the Law Journal report of the case. Mr. Lanjani and Mr. Moustashari seem to have had doubts whether the landlords would consent to Wellmack assigning the lease to an Iranian who spoke no English and presented the scruffy appearance which Mr. Lanjani presented. 100 The contract was governed by The Law Society's General Conditions of Sale (1980 edition). (See Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457). 11. III.Google Scholar, 11 The earliest regular use of standard form agreements was probably in insurance contracts, the most celebrated in contracts of carriage: see Adams, J.N., (1978) 7 Anglo-American Law Rev. Mr. Lanjani wanted to get back to Iran owing to the troubles there, while Mr. Peyman wanted to buy a business quickly and get in control of the business and improve his situation with the Home Office". 52 Essay upon the law of contracts and agreements (1790, London), vol. Vigers v Pike (1842) 8 CI&F 562. 778, C.A. Clause 6 provided for completion on 2nd April 1979, Request a trial to view additional results, Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and Others v Valero Energy Ltd (Pannone & Partners (A Firm), Part 20 defendant), TCG Pubs Ltd ((in Administration)) and Another v The Master and Wardens or Governors of the Art or Mystery of the Girdlers of London, SELF-DEALING AND NO-PROFIT RULES: COMPANIES ACT 2016, DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW, LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE MAY,LORD JUSTICE SLADE, Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court), Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. This contract is conditional upon the granting of a Licence by the Landlord to the Assignment of the said Lease to the Purchaser PROVIDED THAT should the said Licence be refused and not available within a period of eight weeks from the date hereof then either party may rescind this contract by notice in writing whereupon the same shall be null and void and the deposit shall be refunded in full to the Purchaser..". This will . 465, especially at p. 469, Channell B., and p. 470, Pollock C.B. This being so, I do not think that a party to a contract can realistically or sensibly be held to have made this irrevocable choice between rescission and affirmation unless he has actual knowledge not only of the facts of the serious breach of the contract by the other party which is the pre-condition of his right to choose, but also of the fact that in the circumstances which exist he does have that right to make that choice which the law gives him.Stephenson LJ said: I therefore feel free to follow the decision of this court in Leathley v John Fowler and Co Ltd [1946] KB 579 and to hold that knowledge of the facts which give rise to the right to rescind is not enough to prevent the plaintiff from exercising that right, but he must also know that the law gives him that right yet choose with that knowledge not to exercise it..

Fallout: New Vegas Do Companions Need Ammo, Articles P