Shahida the plaintiff a fashion designer wanted to beautify her new shop and went to Benjamin Looking local art gallery to enquire and purchase an artwork to make her shop attractive to the customers. Shahida explained to the Reagan the salesperson in this art gallery that she wanted any [painting artwork by the local artists of the nineteenth century Hilda des Ste Croix. This local artist was well known and many people liked her paintings this is the reason as to why Shahida wanted to have one of her paintings in her shop to add value to the beauty of her shop. The issue in this case now is that Reagan the salesman showed Shahida another painting done by another painter but an apprentice of Hilda des Ste Croix. Thus, the artwork painting was
…show more content…
Thus, it was clear that the defendant had the intention of defrauding the clients by selling them fake items. Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 is also another case that was decided on the ground of negligence. The defendant had the capacity to appropriately advice the plaintiff on the capacity of throughout gallons of oil but induced the plaintiff to sign a contract that later led to losses. Thus, the defendant negligently failed to provide enough information to the other party before making the …show more content…
Benjamin can argue in court that it was the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the item she was buying was original and exactly what she wanted. However, the plaintiff over depended on the scanty information that was given by the salesperson. The plaintiff would have gone to an extent to ask other experts even after buying the item to establish whether she has got the right item, but she went with the item stayed with it for five years and later came complaining after it started to fade off. Thus, the plaintiff holds part of the responsibility for the damages caused, were that she was careful; she could not have incurred this damage. Pennington v Norris 1956 96 CLR 10 is one of the historical cases that were decided to base on contributory negligent defense. Butterfield V Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926 is another early case where contributory negligence was used as a defense
There are various remedies the court uses in misrepresentation cases there is rescission where the court rescinds or restructure the contract so that the parties can sign it fresh on fair terms. Rescission makes the earlier signing to be void. Rescission of the contract seeks to remove the unfair terms which the superior party to the contract may have used to cause damage to the other
Thus, it was clear that the defendant had the intention of defrauding the clients by selling them fake items. Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 is also another case that was decided on the ground of negligence. The defendant had the capacity to appropriately advice the plaintiff on the capacity of throughout gallons of oil but induced the plaintiff to sign a contract that later led to losses. Thus, the defendant negligently failed to provide enough information to the other party before making the …show more content…
Benjamin can argue in court that it was the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the item she was buying was original and exactly what she wanted. However, the plaintiff over depended on the scanty information that was given by the salesperson. The plaintiff would have gone to an extent to ask other experts even after buying the item to establish whether she has got the right item, but she went with the item stayed with it for five years and later came complaining after it started to fade off. Thus, the plaintiff holds part of the responsibility for the damages caused, were that she was careful; she could not have incurred this damage. Pennington v Norris 1956 96 CLR 10 is one of the historical cases that were decided to base on contributory negligent defense. Butterfield V Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926 is another early case where contributory negligence was used as a defense
There are various remedies the court uses in misrepresentation cases there is rescission where the court rescinds or restructure the contract so that the parties can sign it fresh on fair terms. Rescission makes the earlier signing to be void. Rescission of the contract seeks to remove the unfair terms which the superior party to the contract may have used to cause damage to the other