Misrepresentation

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Haleema
  • Created on: 02-05-16 23:12

Misrepresentation

Must be distinguished from Mere Puffs - exaggerated claims which do not make a binding contract - Dimmock v Hallett

Representations are statements of facts somewhere between mere puffs and terms.

The effect of a misrepresentation is that the contract is voidable, therefore the court may allow recission, however this is an equitable remedy.

Liability for misrep cannot be excluded unless it is reasonable to do so under UCTA 1977

Misrep needs to be defined as unambigous, false, statement of law or fact, addressed to the party misled and induces the contract.

Unambigous - not clear - McInnery v Lloyd's Bank - the misrep must be clear, the representor will not be liable if the representee has placed an unreasonable construction on the representation.

False - Avon Insurance - statement must be false, it will not be false if it is substansially true

Statement of Law -  Hackney LBC - a statement of law can give rise to misrep

Statement of Fact - Malaysia Mining Corp - a representation is not an undertaking to do or not to do something, it is a statement asserting a given state of affairs.

 Determine the statement of fact

Conduct may be a statement of fact - Spice Girls v Aprilia

Mere opinion is not a statement of fact - ''i think'' - Bissett v Wilkinson - unless the party making the statement has specialist knowledge or skill, their opinion may be treated as being an implied…

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »