Remedies Flashcards
remedies for innocent misrepresentation
recission
restitution to original precontract position is impossible
contract is affirmed
delay
third party has rights over the property
recission explanation
an equitable remedy, courts will only award if its fair to do so in circumstances. it wont be available in the below circumstances.
restitution to original precontract position is impossible
where restitution is not possible recission will not be available
Clarke v Dickson
facts: Clarke was misled into buying shares by the defendant’s false statement. When financial troubles arose, Clarke sought to recover his money
held: unlike returning a purchased item, rescinding the contract for worthless shares was not allowed.
contract is affirmed explanation
if an innocent party continues with the contract despite knowing of the misrepresentation they cannot seek recission
Long v Lloyd
facts:
The claimant bought a lorry, advertised as exceptional, from the defendant. Despite discovering faults, the claimant still purchased it.
held: no claim
principle: if a buyer, aware of defects, accepts partial payment for repairs, they may lose the right to rescind the contract for innocent misrepresentation, affirming the agreement.
delay explanation
if equity delay defeats equity, once contract is completed complaints must arise shortly after, if time elapses its assumed there are no major problems
Leaf v International Galleries
facts: The claimant bought a painting from the defendant, and they both believed it was done by a famous artist. 5 years later it was found it was not done by any famous painter, so the claimant bought an action of misrepresentation
held: The claim for innocent misrepresentation succeeded, BUT the claimant could not rescind the contract due to lapse of time
third party has rights over the property explanation
if someone else has an interest in the property (rights) it would not be fair to rescind the contract
Lewis v Averay
facts:
C sold his Mini Cooper to someone pretending to be Richard Greene. Despite a fake studio pass, the imposter gave a dishonoured cheque and sold the car to C. C sought the car’s return, claiming a void contract due to a mistake.
held: court disagreed
principle: transactions are based on dealing with the person physically present, even if there is a mistake involved.