Vitiating Factors: Remedies for Misrepresentation

Question 1

Clarke v Dickson

Answer 1

• Rescission was not available as the victim could not return to the original problem.

Question 2

Long v Lloyd

Answer 2

• By persevering with the lorry after the first breakdown, he had indicated his willingness to continue with the contract and so affirmed the contract.

Question 3

Leaf v International Galleries

Answer 3

• Even though he had no means of finding out the truth until he came to sell the painting, rescission was not allowed because of the delay in bringing his claim.

Question 4

Lewis v Averay

Answer 4

• The claim for rescission failed as in the circumstances it would be unfair to deprive the third party of the car purchased in good faith.

Question 5

Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

Answer 5

• There could be a duty of care in negligence even though there was no contractual relationship.

Question 6

Howard Marine v Ogden & Sons

Answer 6

• They had not discharged the burden of proof by demonstrating they had reasonable grounds for believing it to be true; they had the registration document of the barge which stated the correct capacity, so it could not be innocent misrepresentation.

Question 7

Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson

Answer 7

• The measure of damages for negligent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is the same as for fraud.

Question 8

Derry v Peek

Answer 8

• The directors of the company were only careless as to whether what they said was true, so it was not fraudulent representation.

Question 9

Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers

Answer 9

• In fraudulent misrepresentation the remedies are rescission and damages in the tort of deceit.

Question 10

East v Maurer

Answer 10

• It is possible to recover damages for loss of profit following a fraudulent misrepresentation.