Misrepresentation

Question 1

Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith

Answer 1

objective test - would a reasonable person say it is a representation?

Question 2

Walters v Morgan

Answer 2

‘a nod or a wink’ intended to induce vendor to believe the existence of a non-existing fact may be actionable

Question 3

Gordon v Selico

Answer 3

trying to hide dry rot rather than fix it

- purposeful way of covering made it a statement not just silence

Question 4

Spice Girls v Aprilla

Answer 4

mere silence is not enough but they conducted themselves in a way that made a rep that Gerri wasn’t leaving (photoshoots)

Question 5

McInerny v Lloyd’s Bank

Answer 5

has to be ‘unambiguous false statement’

• here they just read it wrong and misinterpreted the statement
• not misrepresentation

Question 6

Pankhania v Hackney

Answer 6

wrong statement of law can give rise to misrepresentation

Question 7

Smith v Land and House 1884

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Bisset v Wilkinson

Answer 8

if vendor isn’t an expert then it is just an opinion

Question 9

Esso Petroleum v Mardon

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Beattie v Ebury

Answer 10

statements of future intention are not actionable (bc cannot be true or false at the time it is made)

Question 11

Wales v Wadham

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Dimmock v Hallet

Answer 12

land was ‘fertile and improvable’

- so specific NOT a mere puff

Question 13

Smith v Land and House 1885

Answer 13

let out to “the most desirable tenant”

• vague but relied on it
• vendor had superior knowledge
• actionable = not mere puff

Question 14

Keates v the earl of cadogan

Answer 14

english law does not require a duty of disclosure so silence is not actionable

Question 15

half truths

Answer 15

not silence so actionable

Question 16

Continuing representations (duty to correct representations if they later find it false)

Answer 16

With v O’flanagan

Fitzroy v Mentmore

Question 17

Smith v Eric S Bush

Answer 17

misrep has to be addressed directly to the party or a third party with intention that it is to be passed onto the claimant

Question 18

inducement

Answer 18

reasonable person test?

- mixed response

Question 19

Raifessisen Zentralbank v Bank of Scotland

Answer 19

implies a ‘but for’ test for inducement

Question 20

Mattias v Yetts

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Museprime v Adhill

Answer 21

no inducement or misrepresentation if it is not communicated

Question 22

Horsfall v Thomas

Answer 22

active concealment of defect

• but buyer did not inspect
• nothing communicated
• not actionable misrep

Question 23

Attwood v Small

Answer 23

• independant investigator said the same thing as vendor

- no misep because he was not induced by vendor but by investigator

Question 24

Derry v Peek

Answer 24

For tort of deceit (fraudulent mis rep) - representee has to prove that fraud has occurred

Question 25

Hedley Bryne

Answer 25

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

Question 26

The Wagon Mount

Answer 26

measure of damages is vulnerable to rule of remoteness

Question 27

Howard Marine v A Ogden & Sons

Answer 27

under s.2(1) of mis rep act 1967

• very hard to shift assumption
• burden of proof on representor

Question 28

Royscott Trust v Rogerson

Answer 28

‘fiction of fraud’

- person who isn’t fraudulent is treated as just as liable as a fraudulent one

Question 29

Islington LBC v UCKAK

Answer 29

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’

Question 30

Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell

Answer 30

speaking to police is a reasonable step to express desire that he wants to rescind the contract

Question 31

Long v lloyd

Answer 31

bar to rescission - representee affirms

Question 32

Leaf v international galleries

Answer 32

lapse of time can bar recession

Question 33

Clark v Dickson

Answer 33

no rescission if restitution is impossible

Question 34

Phillips v Brooks 1919

Answer 34

claimant must communicate decision to rescind before goods are passed on (bar to rescission)

Question 35

Doyle v Olby

Answer 35

doesn’t matter if D foresaw or not, still liable

Question 36

Smith New Court securities v Scrimgeour Vickers

Answer 36

unforeseeable losses can only be claimed under deceit

Question 37

Clef Aquitaine SARL v laporte Materials

Answer 37

claimed damages for losing money from another contract he could have entered into

• huge extension from the tort of deceit
• consequential losses!!

Question 38

4 Eng v Harper

Answer 38

• c can claim consequential damages