Misrepresentation Case Study

The first issue here is that there has been a representation happening between Percy and Goodhomes & Co. Representation is a statement of fact which is relied on by the receiving party. In this scenario, Percy relied on the statement given by the estate agent: ‘ that the garden amounts to 1.5 acres. In reality, as would be obvious to anyone with any experience in such matters, the garden is less than three- quarters of an acre in size.’ and was induced to enter into a contract. As such, the estate agent in including Percy to enter a contract for the purchase of the property has made certain statements which later turn out to be untrue and may be actionable on the grounds of misrepresentation.

To find out actionable misrepresentation, the …show more content…
Percy immediately posted a letter back saying he would buy the car and asked Reena if she would accept £2,500 immediately and the remaining £500 at the end of the month. Finally, Reena has now decided that she does not wish to sell the car to Percy. This indicates that Percy does not accept Reena’a offer as he cannot pay the full amount in cash immediately but will pay the remaining £250 at the end of the month. In this situation, Percy has done a counter offer to Reena. The rule for counter offer is indicated in the case of ‘Hyde v Wrench’. The rule illustrated with this case is that the counter offer replaces the original offer with the new terms and therefore once a counter offer has been made, the one party which has rejected the original offer can not then maintain that the original offer still stands and forms a contract. In Percy’s scenario, it closes with Percy telling Reena that he would buy the car and asked Reena if she would accept £2,500 immediately and the remaining £500 at the end of the month. Reena has now decided that she does not wish to sell the car to Percy. Now, examining on the topic about ‘acceptance’, it simply means: “Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer”. The counter offer by Percy must be communicated otherwise there is no …show more content…
However, this rule does not apply to the given scenario between Percy and Reena, but in ‘Entores v Miles Far East Corp’ the rule was cited in order to support the development on what would constitute communication of acceptance where parties are in direct communications through ignoring the postal rule. As nowadays, the technology has developed and therefore the problem started when immediate communication was received as now these can be made indirectly through leaving messages via voice message or telex. As law has addressed if this would constitute a valid communication, in the case of Brinkibon the court has held similarly as in the ‘Entores v Miles Far East Corp’ in situation where instantaneous communication is, the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror, and therefore the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received. Applying this judgement to the scene between Percy and the Reena, we find that the decision of Reena that she does not wish to sell the car to Percy generated no receipt of the communication. As discussed under the case ‘Entores and Brinkibon’, there must have been a receipt of communication generated and therefore the attempt of Reena deciding that she does not wish to sell the car to Percy would not constitute a valid communication of acceptance of