As pointed out by Mr. Justice Duff in the Gutschenritter Case, supra, under an agreement for the sale of land the purchaser acquires a right to receive a good title in fee simple to everything usque ad coelum et ad inferos denoted by the term "land"; this, of course, includes minerals; and while the land in the present case is sold subject to the reservations contained in the original grant from the Crown, minerals were not reserved to the Crown in the original grant, and the vendor is therefore, in my opinion, bound to furnish title for the minerals. The (seller) not having the title which he agreed to convey, the (purchaser) on discovering this fact was entitled, if he acted promptly, to repudiate the contract and demand back and recover the moneys he had paid"

There is something inherently inconsistent in this discussion. Can you identify the concern with this statement regarding the Ad Coelum rule?