Misrepresentation Flashcards
What is an actionable misrepresentation?
Representation = a statement asserting the truth of a given state of facts
An a) unambiguous b) false c) statement of fact d) made to the claimant e) inducing them to enter into the contract with the statement maker
Each letter indicates an element; all must be present
What are the consequences of a misrepresentation?
Subject to limitations
Makes the contract voidable - wronged party must take action to rescind the contract
What do unambiguous and false mean in terms of the definition of misrepresentation?
Unambiguous = clear and has meaning put forward by representee
False = will not be false if substantially correct (i.e. can be true without being entirely correct)
If the representee places own unreasonable construction on representation, can representor still be liable?
No
What amounts to a ‘statement of fact’ in the context of misrepresentation?
Must be a statement asserting a given state of affairs, includes…
- Conduct (e.g. intentional concealment of dry rot)
- Statement of law
What does not amount to a ‘statement of fact’ in the context of misrepresentation?
- ‘Mere puffs’ do not count (e.g. salesmen/estate agents have lots of leeway when advertising)
- Statements of opinion, future intention and instances of silence (not actionable on the face of it)
Note there are exceptions!
What are the 2 tests for inducement in misrepresentation
Either…
- Representee shows statement would have influenced reasonable person + representor cannot show the statement did not influence particular representee (i.e. it was material)
or
- Representee shows that it was personally induced by the statement (subjective)
In what 3 circumstances can a representee not be induced?
I.e. the statement was…
Where…
- Statement was not communicated to them
- Statement did not affect decision to enter contract
- Statement known to be untrue by representee
Does the misrepresentation need to be the only reason the claimant entered the contract?
No! Another reason can contribute even if it that reason was a mistaken belief (and even if that mistaken belief was the decisive factor)
Edgington - plaintiff induced to lend money to company by false representation in company prospectus (misrepresentation) and more decisively the beliief that he would have a charge on assets of company if he made loan (mistaken belief) - was able to sue for fraudulent misrepresentation
What if a representee chooses to test the validity (investigate) of the representor’s statement?
Even following wildly exaggerated misrepresentations
A party cannot bring a claim in misrepresentation if they rely on their own investigations rather than the misrepresentation
Separate enquiries = vendor’s statement not relied upon
Attwood - vendor of mine made wildly exaggerated statements about earning capacity which purchaser did not believe - sent own agent to make report and they produced a similar report to the vendor - mine turned out to be virtually worthless - misrepresentation claim was dismissed as purchaser did not rely on statement of vendor but was induced to purchase mine on strength of own agent’s report
Will separate enquiries alone always invalidate a claim for misrepresentation?
No - only if they can show that purchaser did not rely on vendor’s statements
Is there a duty to check misrepresentor’s statements?
No
Can contributory negligence be a defence for the misrepresentor in a case of misrepresentation?
Yes - if a representee does not check where the court considers it reasonable for them to have done so/carries out negligent investigation
Bar where misrepresentation is fraudulent
What is the general rule on statements of opinion, statements of future intention and silence?
They cannot amount to statements of fact on which misrepresentation claim can be based
What are the 2 exceptions to statements of opinion?
Where statements of opinion can result in a claim for misrepresentation
- If the representor has greater knowledge than the representee (esp if no reasonable grounds to hold opinion) - if parties have equal knowledge, less likely to be misrepresentation
- If the opinion expressed is not one which the representor held (believed)
In both cases will be a statement of fact
Esso - Madron took lease of petrol station after being assured by Esso representative that annual throughput would be 200,000 gallos of petrol per year (inaccurate estimate!) - estimated gallonage never reached and petrol station was uneconomic - Mardon brought misrepresentation claim, court held Esso had carefully estimated potential sales based on substantial skill and expertise
What are the exceptions to a statement of future intention?
Where statements of future intention can result in a claim for misrepresentation
If when someone makes the statement re future intention, knowing they cannot do what they state or they do not intend to do it, they misrepresent their existing intention (are stating an intention to do something which is untrue; a promise that they never intended to keep)
- Excluding promises regarding future intention that are prevented from following course of conduct or circumstances change to change their mind about intention
Wales - divorce settlement negotiated on generous basis that woman would remain single - prior to conclusion of settlement the wife agreed to marry another and did not communicate this change of intention - husband sought to rescind on non-disclosure but court held wife had not misrepresented when she told her current husband she would not remarry