Misrepresentation Flashcards
Representations are
statements of fact
Misrepresentations are
false statements of fact. Make the contract voidable
Representations distinguished from mere puff
Dimmock v Hallett - advertising puff will not amount to a representation
Representations and terms
J. Evans v Andrea Merzario - term is a contractual promise to do smth it future, it is not misrepresentation
Misrepresentation - elements
- unambiguous
- false
- statement of fact or law
- addressed to the party misled
- material and induces the contract
- causes loss
Misrepresentation - elements
UNAMBIGUOUS
McInery v Lloyd’s Bank
Misrepresentation - elements
FALSE
Avon Insurance v Swire Fraser
Misrepresentation - elements
STATEMENT OF FACT OR LAW
Statement of fact
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Corp - a representation is not an undertaking to do or not to do smth. It is a statement asserting a given state of affairs.
West London Commercial Bank v Kitson - false statement bof the existence of an Act of P. is misrep of fact.
Statement of Law
Pankhania v Hackney LBC - legal status of a car park was misrepresented. Misrep of law
Conduct
Gordon v Selico - attempts of concealment are deemed to be misrep
Spice Girls v Aprilia WS - concealed that they are alredy 4 rather then 5 girls. It was misrep.
Misrepresentation - elements
STATEMENT OF FACT OR LAW
STATEMENT OF OPINION
- Layman’s opinion is not fact
Bisset v Wilkinson - Opinion expressed by an expert my be a statement of fact (where misrepresentor has greater knowledge than misrepresentee)
Smith v Land & House Property Corp - Opinion expressed by an expert my be a statement of fact (where expert gives the opinion in area of their expertise
Esso v Marden
Statement of future intention is not a fact
- Beattie v Ebury - a representation that smth will be done in the future cannot be true or false at the moment it was made
- Wales v Wadham - no duty to inform other party of change of future intention
Dishonest statement of intention is fact
Edgington v Fitzmauirice - company issued a prospectus inviting the oubliс to purchase shares in the company. It said that the money would be used to improve the company’s premises and expand its business. It was lie, they knew that money would be used to pay off the companies debts.
Silence is not fact
Keates v The earl of Cadogan - there is no duty to disclose
Exceptions to the Silence rule
i) Half-truths (literally true, but factually misleading)
Dimmock v Hallett
Notts Patent Brick v Butler - solicitor did not look at the documents but said that there was to restrictions on the property “at the time of awareness”
ii) Continuing representations (true initial, but false at time of contracting
With v O’Flanagan (doctor;s practice that decreases in the price at the time of contracting)
iii) contracts uberrimae fidei (fiduciary relationships)
Misrepresentation - elements
ADDRESSED TO THE CLAIMANT
either directly or thorough the 3rd party
Commercial banking of Sydney v RH Brown - opinion was not honestly held by the buyers bank manager who knew that the plaintiff’s bank has asked for the opinion on behalf of the customer likely to enter into trade relations with the buyer.
Opinion was given with the intent to deceive and with intent that it should be acted upon.
Misrepresentation - elements
MATERIALITY and INDUCEMENT
Materiality
i) Pan Atlantic Insurance v Pine Top Insurance - test for materiality is objective: does statement relate to issue that would influence the reasonable man?
ii) Smith v Chadwick if statement is material - inducement generally inferred as a matter of fact
iii) Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties - unless the defendant can prove the claimant was not induced (had his own investigation)
iv) if fact is not material the claimant must prove that he was subjectively induced (Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties)
Inducement
i) Edgintgon v Fitzmaurice - Misrep need not be the only inducement. The claimant admitted that the reason of purchase of the shares was that he would be the owner of the company.
ii) JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom - - Misrep must have been an inducement - negligent accounting, bankruptcy of the company. defendant proved that the only reason why the claimant wanted that company were two directors. Court agreed, it was not an inducement