Misrepresentation Flashcards
Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith
objective test - would a reasonable person say it is a representation?
Walters v Morgan
‘a nod or a wink’ intended to induce vendor to believe the existence of a non-existing fact may be actionable
Gordon v Selico
trying to hide dry rot rather than fix it
- purposeful way of covering made it a statement not just silence
Spice Girls v Aprilla
mere silence is not enough but they conducted themselves in a way that made a rep that Gerri wasn’t leaving (photoshoots)
McInerny v Lloyd’s Bank
has to be ‘unambiguous false statement’
- here they just read it wrong and misinterpreted the statement
- not misrepresentation
Pankhania v Hackney
wrong statement of law can give rise to misrepresentation
Smith v Land and House 1884
both parties know facts equally
- expression of one is just an opinion
- if facts were not known to both sides, a statement of opinion can become a statement of fact
Bisset v Wilkinson
if vendor isn’t an expert then it is just an opinion
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
Esso rep deemed to have superior knowledge so they are under a duty to put reasonable care into statement to make sure it is correct
Beattie v Ebury
statements of future intention are not actionable (bc cannot be true or false at the time it is made)
Wales v Wadham
statements of future intention CAN BE ACTIONABLE - if you had no intention to keep the promise at the time or you know you cannot keep the promise
Dimmock v Hallet
land was ‘fertile and improvable’
- so specific NOT a mere puff
Smith v Land and House 1885
let out to “the most desirable tenant”
- vague but relied on it
- vendor had superior knowledge
- actionable = not mere puff
Keates v the earl of cadogan
english law does not require a duty of disclosure so silence is not actionable
half truths
not silence so actionable
Continuing representations (duty to correct representations if they later find it false)
With v O’flanagan
Fitzroy v Mentmore
Smith v Eric S Bush
misrep has to be addressed directly to the party or a third party with intention that it is to be passed onto the claimant
inducement
reasonable person test?
- mixed response
Raifessisen Zentralbank v Bank of Scotland
implies a ‘but for’ test for inducement
Mattias v Yetts
implies that if a material misstatement is made it is inferred that he is induced to enter because of it
- no proof needed it is presumed
Museprime v Adhill
no inducement or misrepresentation if it is not communicated
Horsfall v Thomas
active concealment of defect
- but buyer did not inspect
- nothing communicated
- not actionable misrep
Attwood v Small
- independant investigator said the same thing as vendor
- no misep because he was not induced by vendor but by investigator
Derry v Peek
For tort of deceit (fraudulent mis rep) - representee has to prove that fraud has occurred
Hedley Bryne
tort of negligence claim
- here, bank owns a duty of care so they breached it when failing to take reasonable care when giving information about financial soundness of 3rd party
The Wagon Mount
measure of damages is vulnerable to rule of remoteness
Howard Marine v A Ogden & Sons
under s.2(1) of mis rep act 1967
- very hard to shift assumption
- burden of proof on representor
Royscott Trust v Rogerson
‘fiction of fraud’
- person who isn’t fraudulent is treated as just as liable as a fraudulent one
Islington LBC v UCKAK
voidable contracts exist ‘until and unless it is set aside by an order of rescission made by the court at the instance of the party seeking to terminate it’
Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell
speaking to police is a reasonable step to express desire that he wants to rescind the contract
Long v lloyd
bar to rescission - representee affirms
Leaf v international galleries
lapse of time can bar recession
Clark v Dickson
no rescission if restitution is impossible
Phillips v Brooks 1919
claimant must communicate decision to rescind before goods are passed on (bar to rescission)
Doyle v Olby
doesn’t matter if D foresaw or not, still liable
Smith New Court securities v Scrimgeour Vickers
unforeseeable losses can only be claimed under deceit
Clef Aquitaine SARL v laporte Materials
claimed damages for losing money from another contract he could have entered into
- huge extension from the tort of deceit
- consequential losses!!
4 Eng v Harper
- c can claim consequential damages
