Misrepresentation

Question 1

A statement of opinion is not a statement of fact (so it is not actionable for misrep)

Statement of opinion, if made by an expert, contains an implied statement of fact - is actionable for misrep

Answer 1

Bisset v Wilkinson

Esso v Mardon

Question 2

A statement of intention contains a statement of fact - making a representation about a fact (state of mind at the time).
It intention never true –> misrep.

Answer 2

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Question 3

Half truths - statements that are literally true but to reasonable listener convey an untruth. Reasonable steps could have been taken to ascertain the truth so it is misrep

Answer 3

Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Co v Butler

Question 4

Continuing representation (2)

Answer 4

With v O’Flanagan

Spice Girls v Aprillia

Question 5

Representation by Conduct

Answer 5

Spice Girls v Aprillia

Question 6

Inducement is assumed unless:

Representee was aware of the untruth (2)

Answer 6

Regrave v Hurd (here contract unenforceable because D was not aware of the untruth - all that could be shown was that if he had inspected docs he would have known) D can sue for misrep

Zurich Insurance Company v Heywood (insurance company had suspicion that claim was untrue but did not definitively know). Escaping liability as representor is hard as you must show that the representee actually knew

Question 7

Inducement is assumed unless:

Representee relied about a different inducement

Answer 7

Atwood v Small (relied on own incompetent survey not the statements made by seller)

Question 8

Inducement is assumed unless:

Representee was not aware of the misrepresentation

Answer 8

Horsfall v Thomas (untrue statement of conduct - presenting gun as complete- was not relied upon as it was not communicated to buyer. They never saw gun in person when buying)

Question 9

Inducement is assumed unless:

Representee would have entered the contract even if they were aware of the untruth

Answer 9

The Lucy - seems subcharterer would have entered into contract anyway, just trying to find a way out.

Question 10

Fraudulent misrepresentation

Answer 10

Derry v Peek

Question 11

Negligent misrepresentation

Answer 11

Howard Marine & Dredging v Odgen

Question 12

Rescission must be communicated except in cases of fraud

Answer 12

Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell

Question 13

Bars to rescission:

Intervention of innocent third party rights

Answer 13

Ingram v Little

Question 14

Bars to rescission:
Lapse of Time
5 years

3 and a half years

Answer 14

Leaf v International Galleries

Salt v Stratstone Specialist - lapse of time was not a bar. If you rescind as soon as you become aware of the right , rescission not barred.

Question 15

Bars to rescission:

Affirmation

Answer 15

Peyman v Lanjani

- here his bad grasp of English meant he was not aware of right to rescind which is why he affirmed the contract

Question 16

Bars to rescission:
Inability to make substantial restitution - rescission still allowed if it is substantially the same (with financial compensation to make it up) (2)

Answer 16

Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co

Salt v Stratstone - burden of proof was on representor to prove if ‘practical’ justice required an account for depreciation

Question 17

s.2(2) misrep act damages can only be awarded when there is a right to rescind - if rescission is barred, can no longer claim for damages.

Answer 17

Salt v Stratstone

Question 18

fraudulent misrep damages - Damages awarded on basis of foregone opportunity for fraudulent misrep instead of tortious measure as they should have been.

Answer 18

East v Maurer

Question 19

negligent misrep damages

- Damages payable under section 2(1) were the same as the tort of deceit

Answer 19

Royscott v Rogerson

Question 20

wholly innocent misrep damages - Damages assessed on an equitable basis. no misrep found here (party just wanted out of contract) but if there had been curt would have had discretion to decide on an equitable basis under s(2) - note this is part of the obiter and hypothetical

Answer 20

William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire C.C