Overall Issues
In this case, the issue on Bernard’s concern, if he is entitled to rescind the contract. In this unclear episode, there are several factors we have to address on, a contract and its principles. A contract is a concensus ad idem, also known as a meeting of mind where both contracting parties come to a concession. It progresses from an agreement to rights and obligations that are recognised and enforceable by law. There are five key principles of the law of contract. They are formation, terms, vitiating factors, discharge and remedies. It is also important to differentiate the pre-contractual statements and vitiating factors which can affect the enforceability of the contract. Therefore, there is an applicable law done up to …show more content…
Innocent misrepresentation arises where the representor made the false statement without fraud and without fault .
Fraudulent misrepresentation arises when the false statement is made by the representor knowing that it is fake . Example of fraudulent misrepresentation is Panatron Pte Ltd v Cheow Lee & Another [2001], the court held there was a fraudulent misrepresentation, as alleged representations were made to the respondents and these false statements in turn induced the respondents to invest.
Negligent misrepresentation arises when the false statement is made by the representor without due care . Under the Misrepresentation Act, Section 2(1), if the representor who makes a false statement without fraudulent intent would still be liable unless he can prove that he has reasonable grounds to believe the statement to be true . In the case of Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978], the court held the representor liable for negligent misrepresentation, as there is no ground for the …show more content…
Unknown to Bernard and David, the business only made $150,000 profit per year. This is similar to Edgington v Fitzmaurice [1885] and Panatron Pte Ltd v Cheow Lee & Another [2001], as the owner of the business, it is unlikely that Abigail is not aware of the true profit that the business is generating. Although the profits amount does not constitute to any part of the terms of contract or agreement, but it was a pre-contractual statement made by Abigail whom has special knowledge that the $1.5 million annual profits representation could induced the contract. Even David did confirmed Abigail’s statement but it do not affect that Abigail might have made an operative
In this case, the issue on Bernard’s concern, if he is entitled to rescind the contract. In this unclear episode, there are several factors we have to address on, a contract and its principles. A contract is a concensus ad idem, also known as a meeting of mind where both contracting parties come to a concession. It progresses from an agreement to rights and obligations that are recognised and enforceable by law. There are five key principles of the law of contract. They are formation, terms, vitiating factors, discharge and remedies. It is also important to differentiate the pre-contractual statements and vitiating factors which can affect the enforceability of the contract. Therefore, there is an applicable law done up to …show more content…
Innocent misrepresentation arises where the representor made the false statement without fraud and without fault .
Fraudulent misrepresentation arises when the false statement is made by the representor knowing that it is fake . Example of fraudulent misrepresentation is Panatron Pte Ltd v Cheow Lee & Another [2001], the court held there was a fraudulent misrepresentation, as alleged representations were made to the respondents and these false statements in turn induced the respondents to invest.
Negligent misrepresentation arises when the false statement is made by the representor without due care . Under the Misrepresentation Act, Section 2(1), if the representor who makes a false statement without fraudulent intent would still be liable unless he can prove that he has reasonable grounds to believe the statement to be true . In the case of Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978], the court held the representor liable for negligent misrepresentation, as there is no ground for the …show more content…
Unknown to Bernard and David, the business only made $150,000 profit per year. This is similar to Edgington v Fitzmaurice [1885] and Panatron Pte Ltd v Cheow Lee & Another [2001], as the owner of the business, it is unlikely that Abigail is not aware of the true profit that the business is generating. Although the profits amount does not constitute to any part of the terms of contract or agreement, but it was a pre-contractual statement made by Abigail whom has special knowledge that the $1.5 million annual profits representation could induced the contract. Even David did confirmed Abigail’s statement but it do not affect that Abigail might have made an operative