Misrepresentation

Front 1

Dimmock v Hallett

Back 1

Facts: Land 'fertile and improvable'

Held: 'Mere puff' will not amount to a representation. Also exception to silence not being a statement of fact. If silence if there is partial disclosure amounting to a half truth.

Front 2

J Evans & Son

Back 2

Held: A term is a contractual promise and will not amount to a representation. Reps don't have the same weight as contractual promises. They are a middle ground.

Front 3

An Actionable Misrep must...

Back 3

- Be unambiguous.
- Be false.
- Be a statement of fact/law.
- Be addressed to the party misled.
- Be material and induce the contract.
- Cause loss

Front 4

McInerny v Lloyds Bank Ltd

Back 4

Facts: Stated loan was 'suitable for purposes'. This was clearly not intended as a guarantee.

Held: Statement must be unambiguous.

Front 5

Avon Insurance v Swire Fraser

Back 5

Held: A statement is not false if it is substantially correct.

Front 6

Keates v Earl of Cadogan

Back 6

Held: Silence is not a statement of fact.

Front 7

With v O'Flanagan

Back 7

Held: Exception to silence rule...if there is an initial disclosure which later amounts to a continuing representation.

Front 8

Gordon v Sellico/Spice Girls v Aprilia

Back 8

Facts: Concealing dry rot/fact that one of the band members had left.

Held: Conduct can be a statement of fact.

Front 9

Bissett v Wilkinson

Back 9

Held: Opinion is not generally a statement of fact.

Front 10

Smith v Land & House PC

Back 10

Held: Opinion where the statement maker has greater knowledge can be elevated to fact.

Front 11

Esso v Mardon

Back 11

Held: Expert opinion can also be elevated to fact.

Front 12

Pankhania v Hackney LBC

Back 12

Facts: Misrep of a car park's legal status in Hackney.

Held: A statement of law is a statement of fact.

Front 13

Beattie v Edbury

Back 13

Held: A representation of future intention cannot be a statement of fact.

Front 14

Wales v Wadham

Back 14

Facts: Divorce settlement based on wife's future intention not to remarry.

Held: No duty to tell the other party about your intention change.

Front 15

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Back 15

Held: If the future intention was not held at the time of the statement making, this will be fact. A dishonest statement of intention is fact, although this is hard to prove.

- Partial reliance on statement is sufficient...

Front 16

Commercial Banking Co v RH Brown

Back 16

Held: Statement must be addressed to the party misled or can be made indirectly through a third party.

Front 17

Pan Atlantic v Pine Top Insurance

Back 17

Held: The court uses an objective test for materiality. Would it influence the reasonable man? If no, inducement fails.

Front 18

Smith v Chadwick

Back 18

Held: If the statement is found to be material, inducement will generally be inferred.

Front 19

Museprime Properties

Back 19

Held: If the defendant can prove the claimant was not induced (subjective test), then the inducement fails. If the claimant can prove he was induced, then the inducement is established.

Front 20

JEB Fasteners v Mark Bloom

Back 20

Held: The statement only need be 'an' inducement, not 'the sole' inducement (Edgington v Fitzmaurice).

Front 21

Horsfall v Thomas

Back 21

Held: No inducement where C was ignorant of the statement at the time the contract was made.

Front 22

Attwood v Small

Back 22

Held: No inducement where the claimant does not rely on the statement but instead relies on their own investigation. Query this.

Front 23

Redgrave v Hurd

Back 23

Held: No inducement where the claimant knows the statement to be untrue. However, there is no strict duty to check.

Front 24

Smith v Eric Bush

Back 24

Held: Particuarly in commercial cases, the court may deem it reasonable for the claimant to have checked.

Front 25

S Pearson v Dublin Corp

Back 25

Held: Checking is irrelevant if a misrepresentation is proven to be fraudulent. The courts will ignore the claimant's investigation.

Front 26

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Back 26

Definition: You have an action for a fraudulent misrep where a statement is made: knowingly/without belief in its truth.

Remedy: Damages (tort of deceit), rescission and indemnity.

Contrib Neg: Not available.

Front 27

Doyle v Olby

Back 27

Held: Damages available for:

- All losses flowing from the transaction.
- Does not have to be foreseeable.
- As long as not rendered too remote by claimant.

Confirmed in: Scrimgeour Vickers.

Front 28

East v Maurer

Back 28

Held: You can claim for loss of profit, as it the amount the other party would have made had they bought a stable business.

If you have made profit, you cannot claim for loss of profit. (Downs v Chappell).

Front 29

SCB v Pakistan Nat. Ship

Back 29

Held: Contrib neg not available for fraudulent misrep.

Front 30

Negligent Misrepresentation

Back 30

Definition: D liable unless he proves that he did believe the statement was true at the time contract was made and he had reasonable grounds to believe this (s2(1) Misrep Act 1967). Difficult to defend against.

Remedy: Damages (s2(1); rescission or damages in lieu of rescission. s2(2) Indemnity.

Contributory Negligence: Unclear.

Front 31

Royscott Trust v Rogerson

Back 31

Held: Damages the same as what you can claim for fraudulent misrep, except: it only covers losses flowing for the mistatement, not the transaction as a whole (Smith New Court v Smithgeour Vickers).

Front 32

Gran Gelato/Royscott Trust

Back 32

Held: Contributory negligence is a grey area.

Gran Gelato: If you have a concurrent claim in pure negligence, damages can be reduced.

Royscott: You have to treat it as a fraudulent misrep and damages cannot be reduced.

Front 33

Innocent Misrepresentation

Back 33

Definition: If D satisfies the requirements of s2(1) above, the misrep will be deemed innocent.

Remedy: No automatic right to damages; rescission or damages in lieu of rescission s2(2) MA 1967.

Front 34

Whittington v Seale

Back 34

Held: Indemnity is still available as an equitable remedy. Can cover costs related to business EG: parking, rent etc.

Front 35

Negligent mistatement

Back 35

Test from (Hedley Byrne v Heller).

Burden on claimant to prove:
- Reliance was reasonably foreseeable.
- Proximate relationship between parties.
- Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. (Caparo v Dickman).

Remedy: The Wagon Mound test for remoteness.

Contrib Neg: Applies + cannot exclude liability (s3 MA 1967) unless it is reasonable to do so under UCTA 1977.