Misrepresentation and Misstatement Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
0
Q

Smith v Land and House Property Corporation

A

Although prima facie the plaintiffs’ statements concerning a tenant appeared to be an opinion, their expression involved the implied assertion of a factual basis for its making [of the contract]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Bisset v Wilkinson

A

Statements of opinion or belief - expressing an opinion or belief can not be actionable as misrep, it must have purported to be fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

A

Statements of future intention - this was fraudulent when claiming to do one thing with the money when it was actually used to pay creditor’s, however, it is difficult to extend this ratio beyond wilful lies, i.e. fraudulent misrep – generally statements of future conduct are not misrep

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Pankhania v Hackney Borough Council

A

The HL in Kleinwort abolished the rule that a mistake of law is not actionable - applied here - difficult to distinguish though between misrep of law and misrep of fact cf. Solle v Butcher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Hands v Simpson Fawcett

A

Generally, silence cannot amount to misrep

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Tapp v Lee

A

A statement which is half true may be actionable for misrep

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Keates v The Earl of Cadogan

A

The D had not given any warranty or representation concerning the habitability of the house and it therefore did not amount to deceit - this fits well with Smith v Hughes and the oats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

With v O’Flanagan

A

Where the D has done something that creates a positive impression in the mind of the other, and it is later rendered misleading in changing circumstances, this will amount to misrep - a representation continues until the conclusion of the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Dimmock v Hallett

A

Statements that are technically true can be misrep if they withhold information, or, what they imply is false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service

A

Conduct can have the same effect as Dimmock, even though what was represented was technically true, there was an implied assumption that all 5 members of the Spice Girls would be present and withholding Geri’s departure amounted to misrep

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties

A

Where a representation is not material, it is suggested that the probative burden lies on the representee to show that he did in fact rely on it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Attwood v Small

A

Reliance - The buyers had relied on the statements made by their advisors, not the contracting party’s and it was therefore not actionable — materiality and reliance is the reasonable man test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Redgrave v Hurd

A

Even though documents were shown proving the P’s misrep, the D was under not duty to inspect them and was free to instead rely on the P’s representations, which were false - the rep were material and the D had relied upon it - NB contributory negligence now, however

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v Chadwick

A

If C was unaware of the misrep at the time of the contract or was aware but it can be proved that it clearly did not affect his judgment then no liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners

A

Enlarged a duty of care when providing advice, which a party relies upon to its subsequent detriment, when a ‘special relationship’ occurs - unlike misrep statements of opinion, belief, etc can be negligent misstatements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Caparo v Dickman

A

No duty of care as it was foreseeable but there was insufficient proximity - negligent words are different from negligent actions and indeterminate liability needs to be avoided

16
Q

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates

A

The HB principle applied to direct and indirect relationships - a disclaimer will avoid responsibility and an assumption of responsibility may well not be found where information or advice is given in informal circumstances

17
Q

McCulllough v Lane Fox and Partners

A

Affirmed HB - there was a negligent misstatement but a disclaimer prevented the claim

18
Q

Derry v Peek

A

Fraudulent misrep - the directors had honestly but mistakenly assumed that they would gain consent, this was reprehensible but not dishonest - Lord Herschell states that nothing short of proof of fraud will suffice - it must be knowingly made, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its correctness

19
Q

Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers)

A

Damages for fraudulent misrep - it is not merely to ‘make good the representation’ as this was not limited in representations made in deceit - the only limit on recovery is that the loss must be shown to have been caused by the fraudulently induced transaction – very high probative burden for fraudulent misrep

20
Q

East v Maurer

A

Damages will be awarded for fraudulent misrep to represent the value of the hypothetical opportunity lost as a result of the plaintiff tying up money and time in the business instead of pursuing a different venture - damages will NOT be made for the profits which would have been made without the misrep - reliance loss not expectation loss

21
Q

Howard Marine & Dredging Co v A Ogden & Sons

Hedley Byrne

A

Confirmation of negligent misrep - the duty passes, as soon as a misrepresentation is proved, to the representor to prove that he had reasonable ground to believe the facts he presented -

Test of remoteness is reasonable foreseeability

22
Q

Royscot Trust v Rogerson

A

The loss pleaded by the finance company was not too remote - this was fraudulent misrep - negligent misrep was unlimited like fraudulent misrep

23
Q

Gran Gelato v Richcliff

A

Contributory negligence means that damages for fraudulent misrep can be reduced under s2(1)

24
Q

Whittington v Seale-Hayne

A

No damages for innocent misrep but an indemnity can be awarded for certain costs - loss of profits, value of stock lost, removal costs, medical expenses, rent and rates and cost of repairs ordered by council

25
Q

Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell

A

Informal rescission of a contract (without court) - he had done this by calling the police and the AA, which was sufficient to rescind and prevent transfer of title to the car to the bona fide purchaser for value

26
Q

William Sindall v Cambridgeshire CC

A

Factors for rescission - a. the importance in the overall contract, b. the loss that would be caused by the misrep should the contract be upheld and c. the loss which would be caused by the rescission - Lord Hoffman

27
Q

Long v Lloyd

Vigers v Pike

A
  1. Affirmation - election or not
  2. Lapse of time - fraudulent (from fraud), non-f (from beg. of cont.)
  3. Third party rights - bona fide purchaser for value - no resci
  4. Restitution in integrum - major alteration of goods will mean that they cannot be returned - equitable jurisdiction to give money
28
Q

Cremdean v Nash

A

In contrast with Overbrooke v Glencombe, the clause here claimed that they were not representations at, whereas in O v C, it merely limited responsibility for agents’ representations - that was okay

29
Q

Contractual exclusions

A

Fraudulent misrep - principal’s liability for fraud cannot be excluded
Non-fraudulent misrep - exclusion must be reasonable cf. s3 MRA

30
Q

Non-contractual exclusions

A

Negligent misstatement - disclaimer of responsibility may prevent a DOC arising
Non-fraudulent misrep - exclusion of negligence liability may be subject to section 2(2) of UCTA; exclusion of liability may go to materiality of the representation