however
in a rather serious way, would in time remedy itself to a great degree, though, at the cost in the first instance of the persons who abandoned them; they would be resold at the penal rate it was estimated they would bear in the state of the market, and ground rents would thus find their level, until stopped by the upset price; after which abandoned lots would cease to be repurchased until the demand rose.
If the matter be considered, there may (mere) be no doubt that all lessees of unprofitable lots having made their lots "lie idle" and have therefore no legal right to complain; at the same time it must be remembered that the law looks leniently upon the breach of grossly improvident bargains. It is said to be a legal and valid contract to make oneself the voluntary slave of another for life; but for the breach of such a contract it is likely small damages would be recovered. At all events, in the case in question, to enforce the payment of ground rent for land the owners of which are willing by the abandonment thereof, to become sufferers by the loss of the whole of the money they have laid out upon it, cannot, it is thought, be well made to square with the welfare and prosperity of these individuals, nor consequently with that of the colony itself.
But it may be said that the assumptions of three lots of similar value selling at different prices may be erroneous, for that they would naturally sell at their true market value; that No. 3 would not have sold for £410, had it not possessed advantages over No. 1, equivalent to the difference in price.