In Easton v. Montgomery (1891) 90 Cal. 307, the question was whether a buyer could later disaffirm the land sales contract and recover his deposit because of the seller's inability to provide a good title at the time the contract was entered, where the seller did not then own the property. The seller was the equitable owner of the property and had the right to call for legal title by the time of sale and the purchaser was fully informed as to the situation. (Id. at pp. 315-317.) The purchaser sought to disaffirm the sale or recover his deposit without specifying the defect in title and without having fully performed. The court held the purchaser could not use the defect in title at the time of the contract to disaffirm the sale and recover his deposit where it was contemplated in the contract for sale that the purchaser would examine the title; the purchaser apparently never examined the title; and the purchaser never brought any purported defect to the seller's attention to provide the seller an opportunity to remedy it. (Id. at pp. 312-315.)