Mike decided to put his farm up for sale in January. After seeing the listing, Shirley, an experienced farmer, came to look at the property. During the tour of the farm, Shirley told Mike that her main concern was about sources of water. Mike told her that there was no shortage of water on the property. He said that he already had one well that produced a steady flow of water and more could easily be dug. Shirley bought the property and took possession in April. One of the first things she noticed was that the well was producing only a trickle of water. Thinking that it must be blocked, she cleaned it out, but it still produced a minimal amount of water. As the water flow was insufficient to water her crops, she proceeded to dig two more wells in likely places on the property. Again, neither produced more than a trickle of water. Shirley made arrangements to purchase water from a neighbouring farm and continued farming throughout the summer and fall. Over the winter, as she was planning her crops for spring, Shirley found herself more and more frustrated by the water situation. She decided that she would speak to a lawyer about it.

Assuming that Shirley can prove that she was induced to buy the property by Mike’s misrepresentation as to the amount of water available, what remedy do you think a court should grant? If Shirley gave up on farming and, instead, paved over half of the property (to create a revenue-generating parking lot for a nearby park-and-ride transit system), will it change the remedy that might be available to her?