Misrepresentation in Uk Law

A off statement made to set about a party to enter into a shrivel. Misprepresentation if proved renders a annunciation profaneable (see VoidableContract). Three (mayhap four) factors must be established to succeed in a claim of mispresentation. (i) there must be an evident false statement of existing fact (or perhaps law) (ii) it must be addressed to the party misled (iii) it must lure the bid (iv) (perhaps) it must be material, that is, one which would induce a reasonable man to contract in those circumstances. Grounds for evadeation (i) There must be an unambiguous statement of existing fact.Since Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln CC (1991) it might be the case that a statement of law may also set up a misrepresentation although that case concerned resitutionary remedies for money paid chthonic a mistake of law, rather than contract. Three classes of statement are slackly not held to be representations (a) puffs, (b) vox populis, and (c) intentions. (a) It can be difficul t to distinguish a misrepresentation from a puff, that is, an advertising or promotional statement which is not intended to be binding (Dimmock v Hallett (1866), in which it was representated that land was generative and improveable). b) A statement of opinion is not a representation (Bisset v Wilkinson (1927)) unless the opinion of the mortal making the representation has some special weight, e. g. , he or she is a professional employed to give such opinion (Esso v Mardon (1976)). (c) A statement of intention if honestly held cannot be a misrepresentation however, my intention is a fact and it can be dishonestly represented Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885). (ii) The statement must be addressed to the person misled. (iii) The statement must induce the contract.It need not be the restore inducement (Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885)). This test will fail when (a) the representee is actually asleep of the representation (Horsfall v Thomas (1862)), (b) the representee knows the stat ement is untrue, and (c) where the representee is patently unaffected by the statement. (c) is likely where the representee takes other steps to establish the validity of the statement (Atwood v Small (1838)). In general, the fact that the false statement could have been spy with due diligence will not prevent it being reason out hat it induced the contract (RedgraveVHurd1881) but more recently it has been suggested that a misrepresentation does not induce where it would be highly reasonable to sway the representee to check the validity of the statements (SmithVEricSBush1990). (iv) (Perhaps) the statement must be material, that is, one that would induce the contract in a reasonable man. Currently this criterion is doubted. neo practice seems to be to incorporate this requirement into consideration of whether the misrepresentation did induce the contract.Types of misrepresentation Fraudulent misrepresentation This overlaps with the TortOfDeceit. The misrepresentation must be kno wledgeable and dishonest (DerryVPeek1888). Damages are not limited by aloofness (see CausationInNegligence). Rescission may be awarded. Negligent misrepresentation The misrepresentation was not intended to deceive, but nevertheless the defendant is in breach of a DutyOfCare to the claimant. Rescission may be awarded. Innocent misrepresentation The mispresentation was neither unsound nor negligent.In general, damages are not available, but rescission may be awarded. See also MisrepresentationAct1967. Misrepresentation Act (1967) s. 2(1) of this Act is extremely weighty for claimant seeking compensation for Misrepresentation. It has the effect of shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the defendant that is, if the claimant alleges that the defendant made a negligent misrepresentation, the onus is on the defendant to show that he had good grounds for believing the representation to be true.The Act also makes it possible for the court to award damages in misrepresentati on cases, where Rescission would not be available. Another effect of the Act, or at least of the way the Act has been interpreted by judges, is to suspend the claimant to recover not just forseeable losses, but all direct losses. This seems to fall from the wording the Act says that a misrepresentation should be treated as deceitful, despite there being no dishonesty, unless the defendant can show that he was not negligent.It seem unlikely (to me at least) that the creators of the statute had in mind that damages for negligent misrepresentation should be as massive as fraudulent misrepresentation, but there are a come of cases that suggest that judges dont see things the same way. rescission To rescind a Contract is to treat it as terminated, perhaps because one party is in breach (see RepudiationOfContract), or because the contract is revocable (e. g. , for Misrepresentation). vacantable contractUnlike a void contract (see VoidContract), whose legal status is as if it never existed, a voidable contract is one that remains in force until it is declared void by one of the contracting parties. For example, one of the parties may fraudulently misrepresent a service to be offered. The offended party may and then declare the contract void and refuse to be bound by it (see Contract). However, if goods are exchanged under the contract before it is voided, then agnomen is passed. With a void contract no title passes, because effectively the contract never existed.