Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (actionable) |
Misrep that shares were being sold to expand company when in fact the money used was going toward paying off debts. Company went into liquidation, claimant sought to recover money spent on shares. Misrep had occurred as the company had no intention of using the money to expand the company |
|
|
Oscar Chess (special knowledge) |
Defendant sold car as part exchange with log book saying that the car was a 1948 model. It was in fact a 1939 model and not worth the amount deducted in the p/x. The claimant was not allowed to recover money as it was innocent, the claimant had special knowledge and was therefore in a position to recognise that the log book was wrong. |
|
|
Esso v Mardon (special knowledge) |
Mardon sought tenancy of petrol station from Esso. Planning permission altered entrance of station. Esso did not change their estimate for output and revenue. Mardon made a loss of near £6k. Esso had misrepresented Mardon, they were in a better position than him to recognise if the changed planning permission would have affected output. Mardon was induced into the contract by reliance on that fact |
|
|
Ecay v Godfrey (reliance) |
Seller of boat said that he believed it be of sound condition but recommended that the claimant have it checked. The boat turned out to be a defective. The statement by the seller was a mere representation and should not have been considered a term |
|
|
Fraudulent misrepresentation |
Statement made: 1) Knowing it to be false 2) Without belief in its truth 3) Recklessness as to its truth
For recovery the plaintiff must have taken all steps reasonably possible to mitigate the loss
|
|
|
Derry v Peek (honest misrepresentation) |
Statement from company said that they had the right to use steam powered trams. However, application for this right was pending. Peek bought shares, application was rejected. No misrepresentation as company made the statement in the honest belief that the application would be accepted imminently |
|
|
Bisset v Wilkinson (opinion) |
Bisset said that he estimated land could hold 2,000 sheep. Both parties aware that Bisset had no experience in this. Bisset was wrong and Wilkinson claimed for damages. This was rejected as Bisset's statement was a mere opinion and should not have been relied upon as a term |
|
|
Leaf v International Galleries (time lapse) |
Leaf bought painting believed to be of certain artist of 'Salisbury Cathedral'. 5 years later it was discovered that it was not by the correct artist. Their claim for rescission was rejected on the basis that 5 years had passed. Also, they had bought a painting of 'Salisbury Cathedral' and that is what they got. |
|
|
Routledge v Mckay (time lapse) |
Seller and buyer believed bike to be of certain year, registration documents used. Buyer took time to consider and purchased bike later. One year after purchase it was discovered that the year was incorrect but his claim for the money back was rejected on the basis that he had had a period of time before the purchase to check the validity, the documents were not evidence of a contractual term. Also, lack of expertise meant that the statement was a mere representation |
|
|
Vigers v Pike (impossibility) |
Mine lease was misrepresented but by the time the claimant made a claim for rescission the mine had had all the minerals extracted from it. Therefore the parties were unable to be restored to their pre-contractual position. |
|
|
Long v Lloyd (affirmation) |
Plaintiff test drove and purchased lorry aware of certain defects. Lorry broke further and defendant offered to pay half of the repairs. Claimant accepted, lorry broke again to the point that it was unusable. The plaintiff could not rescind the contract as he had affirmed it by accepting the offer to pay half the repairs |
|
|
Actionable misrepresentation |
Renders contract voidable (valid until avoided at the will of the innocent party) |
|
|
Howard Marine v Ogden (negligent) |
Ogden hired two vessels from HM and enquired as to their capacity as they were being hired for a specific job. HM quoted the Lloyds register and the entry in this was actually incorrect meaning that it took Ogden far longer to complete their task. They took action for misrepresentation and HM alleged that they had reasonable grounds to believe that what they were saying was true. This was rejected on the fact that they had the vessel's registration document and could have easily checked that. |
|
|
Future intent |
There can be no action for misrepresentation as to future intent, unless it can be shown that the defendant had absolutely no intent of making true the representation made |
|
|
Doyle v Olby (fraud) |
Claimant was induced in to purchasing a business by fraudulent representations from the defendant. Upon appeal for this, the claimant was granted damages of £5500. This was because for the deceit of fraud damages are repayable based on the actual losses suffered from inducement into the contract. Unlike contract, where damages payable for breach are awarded to put the claimant in the position as if the contract had been performed |
|
|
Tapp v Lee (omitting to tell the whole truth) |
Telling half the truth is actionable misrepresentation where matters peripheral to the omitted fact are discussed. |
|
|
Negligent misrepresentation |
Presumption that where the misrepresentation is not fraudulent that it will be negligent |
|
|
Damages |
Attributable for loss suffered, not comparable to breach where damages are to place the injured in a post-contractual position |
|
|
With v O'Flanagan (change of circumstances) |
Where there is a change of circumstances before the contract is concluded the representor will be expected to inform the representee of this change. Medical practice income devalued significantly. |
|
|
Smith v Land and House (not entirely true) |
There will be actionable misrepresentation where a representation of opinion has been made AND the party was of specific knowledge. Landlord said tenants were most desirable, subjective statement, but objectively false. Used to induce contract |
|
|
Redgrave v Hurd (verification) |
An offer to verify the representation does not negative any reliance made |
|
|
Schawel (statement of importance) |
Where the represented indicates that a statement is of specific importance then it will more likely amount to a term |
