Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Misrepresentation

    Uploaded by

    jasern
    659 views1 page
    An actionable misrepresentation is an unambiguous false statement of fact made to the claimant and which induces the claimant to enter into the contract with the statement maker. This sheet does not cover negligent misstatements.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    An actionable misrepresentation is an unambiguous false statement of fact made to the claimant and which induces the claimant to enter into the contract with the statement maker. This sheet does not cover negligent misstatements.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    659 views1 page

    Misrepresentation

    Uploaded by

    jasern
    An actionable misrepresentation is an unambiguous false statement of fact made to the claimant and which induces the claimant to enter into the contract with the statement maker. This sheet does not cover negligent misstatements.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Contract Law

    Misrepresentation
    First of all, distinguish a representation from other things such as mere puffs and actual contractual terms. Definition:
    ‘An actionable misrepresentation is an unambiguous false statement of fact made to the claimant and which induces
    the claimant to enter into the contract with the statement maker’ This sheet does not cover negligent misstatements.

    CHARACTERISTICS OF A Misrepresentations can be FOUR TYPES


    MISREPRESENTATION addressed directly to the
    claimant (Def ---- Cl) Fraudulent (Tort of Deceit – Fraudulent MR: Remedies for neg MR:
    Unambiguous: common law) Can include loss of profits S.2(1) MA 67 - damages
    McInerny v Lloyd’s Bank Or, they can be addressed East v Maurer [1991]
    [1974] indirectly through a third party Negligent Misrepresentation Damages – all losses directly
    (Def--- 3rd P --- Cl) (MA 1967) Def cannot argue contrib. neg. flowing from the negligent MR
    False: Standard Chartered Bank v - the fiction of fraud (Royscott
    Avon Insurance Plc v Swire Commercial Banking Co. of Innocent Misrepresentation Pakistan National Shipping Trust v Rogerson [1991])
    Fraser Ltd [2000] Sydney v RH Brown & Co. [2003]
    ‘Substantially correct’ Rix J [1972] Negligent Misstatement (Tort Rescission (+ indemnity) or
    of negligence - common Negligent MR damages in lieu under s2(2)
    Statement - conduct Inducement need not be the law) Section 2(1) MA 1967 MA 1967
    Attempts at concealment sole factor (Edginton v
    (Gordon v Selico [1985]) Fitzmaurice [1885[). but it must Fraudulent MR: Liable unless reasonable Innocent MR: If representor
    be a factor (JEB Fasteners v grounds to believe / actual can prove reasonable /
    Conduct (Spice Girls Ltd v Marks Bloom [1983]) A false representation made: belief in statement actual belief - innocent misrep
    Aprilia WS [2002]) knowing it was untrue; or
    If the statement is found to be without belief in its truth; or The fiction of fraud (Howard Remedies: No automatic right
    The statement must be a material, actual inducement reckless as to its truth Marine v A. Ogden [1978]) to damages. Claimant will be
    clear and unambiguous false will be inferred (Smith v Derry v Peek [1889] awarded EITHER :-
    statement of fact not opinion. Chadwick (1884), subject to Burden is on representor to Rescission (+ indemnity) ; OR
    Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] the defence proving otherwise. Burden on claimant to prove prove reasonable / actual Damages in lieu - S.2(2)
    actual fraud / once proven, belief Misrep Act
    Expert opinion: Esso v There is no inducement when motive irrelevant;
    Marden [1976] the misrepresentee or his Verification – pro-claimant Contract induced by misrep Bars to rescission:Third Party
    agent knew the truth; must be between Claimant Rights (Phillips v Brooks
    It used to be thought that a the misrepresentee was Remedies: Rescission + and Defendant [1919]), Affirmation (Long v
    misstatement of law could not ignorant of the representation indemnity/Damages Lloyd [1958]), Impossible to
    constitute a misrepresentation when the contract was made Reasonable approach to go back (Clarke v Dickson (
    (Horsfall v Thomas [1892]); the Measure of damages verification (Smith v E. Bush [1858]) and Lapse (Leaf v
    This is no longer the case misrepresentee did not allow all loss ‘directly flowing’ from [1990] contrast with Redgrave International Galleries [1950])
    Pankhania v Hackney LBC the misrepresntation to affect transaction, do not have to v Hurd [1881])
    [2002] his judgment (Attwood v Small be foreseeable, must not be Remedies: Rescission or
    [1838]). rendered too remote by damages in lieu - discretionary
    Claimant (Doyle v Olby area
    Ironmongers [1969])

    You might also like