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;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Dimmock v Hallett
|
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. |
|
J Evans & Son
|
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.
|
|
An Actionable Misrep must...
|
- Be unambiguous.
- Be false. - Be a statement of fact/law. - Be addressed to the party misled. - Be material and induce the contract. - Cause loss |
|
McInerny v Lloyds Bank Ltd
|
Facts: Stated loan was 'suitable for purposes'. This was clearly not intended as a guarantee.
Held: Statement must be unambiguous. |
|
Avon Insurance v Swire Fraser
|
Held: A statement is not false if it is substantially correct.
|
|
Keates v Earl of Cadogan
|
Held: Silence is not a statement of fact.
|
|
With v O'Flanagan
|
Held: Exception to silence rule...if there is an initial disclosure which later amounts to a continuing representation.
|
|
Gordon v Sellico/Spice Girls v Aprilia
|
Facts: Concealing dry rot/fact that one of the band members had left.
Held: Conduct can be a statement of fact. |
|
Bissett v Wilkinson
|
Held: Opinion is not generally a statement of fact.
|
|
Smith v Land & House PC
|
Held: Opinion where the statement maker has greater knowledge can be elevated to fact.
|
|
Esso v Mardon
|
Held: Expert opinion can also be elevated to fact.
|
|
Pankhania v Hackney LBC
|
Facts: Misrep of a car park's legal status in Hackney.
Held: A statement of law is a statement of fact. |
|
Beattie v Edbury
|
Held: A representation of future intention cannot be a statement of fact.
|
|
Wales v Wadham
|
Facts: Divorce settlement based on wife's future intention not to remarry.
Held: No duty to tell the other party about your intention change. |
|
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
|
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... |
|
Commercial Banking Co v RH Brown
|
Held: Statement must be addressed to the party misled or can be made indirectly through a third party.
|
|
Pan Atlantic v Pine Top Insurance
|
Held: The court uses an objective test for materiality. Would it influence the reasonable man? If no, inducement fails.
|
|
Smith v Chadwick
|
Held: If the statement is found to be material, inducement will generally be inferred.
|
|
Museprime Properties
|
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.
|
|
JEB Fasteners v Mark Bloom
|
Held: The statement only need be 'an' inducement, not 'the sole' inducement (Edgington v Fitzmaurice).
|
|
Horsfall v Thomas
|
Held: No inducement where C was ignorant of the statement at the time the contract was made.
|
|
Attwood v Small
|
Held: No inducement where the claimant does not rely on the statement but instead relies on their own investigation. Query this.
|
|
Redgrave v Hurd
|
Held: No inducement where the claimant knows the statement to be untrue. However, there is no strict duty to check.
|
|
Smith v Eric Bush
|
Held: Particuarly in commercial cases, the court may deem it reasonable for the claimant to have checked.
|
|
S Pearson v Dublin Corp
|
Held: Checking is irrelevant if a misrepresentation is proven to be fraudulent. The courts will ignore the claimant's investigation.
|
|
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
|
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. |
|
Doyle v Olby
|
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. |
|
East v Maurer
|
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). |
|
SCB v Pakistan Nat. Ship
|
Held: Contrib neg not available for fraudulent misrep.
|
|
Negligent Misrepresentation
|
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. |
|
Royscott Trust v Rogerson
|
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).
|
|
Gran Gelato/Royscott Trust
|
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. |
|
Innocent Misrepresentation
|
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. |
|
Whittington v Seale
|
Held: Indemnity is still available as an equitable remedy. Can cover costs related to business EG: parking, rent etc.
|
|
Negligent mistatement
|
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. |