The regulation on misleading omissions in the 2008 Regulations may be viewed as an innovation of the pre-existing legal system by imposing the duty to disclose the material information .
Under the English traditional law, there has generally no duty in the contracting party to disclose facts, therefore, silence on the material information does not amount to misrepresentation. In Keates v The Earl of Cadogan , inspite of knowing that the plaintiff needed to instantly move in the new house but the defendant’s house was in fact unfit for habitation, the defendant still let this house to the plaintiff and kept silent about the condition of the house; it was held that the owner of the house had no duty to inform the tenant about the condition …show more content…
Nonetheless, the failure to provide material facts in some circumstances might be tantamount to the misrepresentation. It may be in this case where a party deliberately attempts to conceal the information as in Schneider v Heath about the sale of a ship, the court held that although the contract was stipulated in such a way that the purchaser has the obligation to buy the ship 'to be taken with all faults '; it is unable for the vendor to take advantage of that stipulation if her defects were known to him and he by any means prevents the buyer from discovering them, or delivers misleading representation of her state at the time of the sale. As aforementioned in section 2.1.2 about misrepresentation, the duty of disclosure is also triggered where the information was accurate when the contract was made but has become false by the …show more content…
In Barton v Armstrong , Armstrong, the former chairman, made a several threats with death to Barton compelling the latter to purchase his shares with a considerable over value; Barton was willing to agree this because of not only the threats but also his desire; the court held that the death threats was sufficient to amount to duress and the contract could be set aside. A different form of duress named economic duress has been presented recent years, usually where one party is pressured into agreeing the variations for fear of losing the contract as the threats to break contract of other party. In The Atlantic Baron , the defendants threatened not to fulfill a ship-building contract unless the claimants paid an additional price occurred by the currency decrease and the claimants agreed with this demand without protest, the contract was declared void for duress, however, the claimants lost their right to rescind the contract due to the lapse of time. Compulsion or coercion of the will and an illegitimate threat are required to constitute economic duress, per Dyson J in DSDN Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo-Services ASA
Under the English traditional law, there has generally no duty in the contracting party to disclose facts, therefore, silence on the material information does not amount to misrepresentation. In Keates v The Earl of Cadogan , inspite of knowing that the plaintiff needed to instantly move in the new house but the defendant’s house was in fact unfit for habitation, the defendant still let this house to the plaintiff and kept silent about the condition of the house; it was held that the owner of the house had no duty to inform the tenant about the condition …show more content…
Nonetheless, the failure to provide material facts in some circumstances might be tantamount to the misrepresentation. It may be in this case where a party deliberately attempts to conceal the information as in Schneider v Heath about the sale of a ship, the court held that although the contract was stipulated in such a way that the purchaser has the obligation to buy the ship 'to be taken with all faults '; it is unable for the vendor to take advantage of that stipulation if her defects were known to him and he by any means prevents the buyer from discovering them, or delivers misleading representation of her state at the time of the sale. As aforementioned in section 2.1.2 about misrepresentation, the duty of disclosure is also triggered where the information was accurate when the contract was made but has become false by the …show more content…
In Barton v Armstrong , Armstrong, the former chairman, made a several threats with death to Barton compelling the latter to purchase his shares with a considerable over value; Barton was willing to agree this because of not only the threats but also his desire; the court held that the death threats was sufficient to amount to duress and the contract could be set aside. A different form of duress named economic duress has been presented recent years, usually where one party is pressured into agreeing the variations for fear of losing the contract as the threats to break contract of other party. In The Atlantic Baron , the defendants threatened not to fulfill a ship-building contract unless the claimants paid an additional price occurred by the currency decrease and the claimants agreed with this demand without protest, the contract was declared void for duress, however, the claimants lost their right to rescind the contract due to the lapse of time. Compulsion or coercion of the will and an illegitimate threat are required to constitute economic duress, per Dyson J in DSDN Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo-Services ASA