Of all the topics as discussed in the class, the topic Misrepresentation has greatly drawn my interest and I got eager to find the appropriate meaning of Misrepresentation by analysing the facts of Misrepresentation under its clause 1, different in accordance to the Indian Contact Act (1872). The term Misrepresentation is defined in Section 18 of the Act is somewhat different from ‘Misrepresentation’ are understood in ordinary parlance. In this response paper, I seek to explore the specific manner in which the Contract Act defines that the Positive Assertion of facts leads to Misrepresentation and how such a definition fits in with the general scheme of the Contract Act, with the hope of responding to some of the difficulties the definition of Misrepresentation raises for contract law.
According to Mckendrick, a proposed definition of Misrepresentation is “A misrepresentation can be defined as an unambiguous false statement of fact which is addressed to the party misled and which induces that party to enter into contract.”
As we look into the Contract act, under Section 18(1), “Misrepresentation is the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true.” According to my analysis, misrepresentation is when the person making a statement is innocently, and he makes the statement without having any intention to deceive the other party. His statement is false although he himself believes that it to be true. This is Misrepresentation. Moreover, Misrepresentation is against the fraud, where is the intention to deceive the other party to enter into the agreement.
On analyzing, the statement must have positive conduct on the part of the pa...
... middle of paper ...
...ions where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is recognized. In case of Hedley Byrne V. Heller [1964] A.C., where the court observed that a statement made negligently that was based upon can be actionable in tort.
The reader can conclude that the Positive Assertion of facts that may be half true or false but without an intention to deceive and for to enter into the contract is Misrepresentation. In addition, it tells about how ICA laws deals under section 18 (1) of ICA for the Misrepresentation in the above including innocent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation with examples of cases discussed. The discussion also highlights for the reader is to make be sure for the contract is to be lawful real and in good faith, if unlawful than it will be consider as void and ICA Laws will deals against it under Misrepresentation.
According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, lying means to tell an account of an untrue event or give false information.
The article suggests that mutual intention should replace objective presumptions of intention to provide sufficient evidence for contract formations and argues that the Australian court system has a long way to go. It further investigates the different court hierarchies and examines the impact to them through different case law. The central argument presents that evidence of intention should be of utmost importance and considered in every case, negating a flat objective
Another factor that comes to play in this case was whether the practice violates public policy. When violating a public policy Which in this case it does because it is illegal to send false documents in order to gain or keep contracts.
It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre-contractual liability, consideration, reliance and the doctrine as a cause of action or defence and a slight comparison of the standpoints that various jurisdictions hold towards these issues. These arguments would conclude the uncertainty of the doctrine and thus, the difficulty and issues that would be faced with the codification of the estoppel.
Lying involves asserting a claim that one knows as false to the other with the intention to mislead the listener. There is generally a widely accepted constraint against lying. Constraint against lying should not be mistaken with a requirement to tell the truth since no such requirement exists. One has a negative duty against telling a lie whereas there is no positive duty requiring one to tell the truth.
Major problems were experienced in the early years after the Act over how the preserved common law conspiracy to defraud dovetailed with the new statutory conspiracy to commit a crime as frequently, an agreement to defraud will necessarily involve an agreement to commit a substantive offence entailing dishonesty such as theft or the new offence of fr...
There are several types of false statement. One of them is a deliberate lie, which goes under the Tort of Deceit. Another one is negligent misstatement, which is basically the statement made carelessly or without reasonable background and is included into the Law of Tort.
If I accepted Mustapha’s falsified claim as something that is a norm and expected from all the staff in the company, I would have deemed failed to perform my professional duties in accordance with the IMA standards. Despite it being so commonly practiced by all (in Mustapha’s own account), what is wrong
Deception is the intentional use of false representations by an individual through words or conduct; in order to dishonestly obtain an unfair advantage for self or another by inducing the victim to transfer a benefit or inflict a detriment upon the victim. The intention to deceive is the supportive fault element.
Lying is intentionally misleading a single person or group of people with a deceptive statement or action. “The moral question of whether you are lying or not is not settle by established by establishing the truth or falsity of what you say. In order to settle this question, we must know whether you intend your statement to mislead.(Chapter 1 pg. 6) When it comes down to trying to decide whether you should justify or reject a lie there are several steps you should take. You need to be able to defend your arguments for your lie in a public setting against an audience or your peers, or what Bok considers “reasonable persons”. You cannot just be able to justify your lie to yourself because then it is automatically invalid. As humans we tend to
A false statement or a statement intended to deceive someone is known as a lie. Of course, there are many different types of lies. There are those blatant lies that have no truth in them whatsoever, lies of omission, and half-truths.
What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.
In the case where the customer a wants to purchase a certain shoe but the shoe store does not have her/her size, and the salesperson tries to trick the customer into purchasing a larger shoe, the sales associate lying and deception is morally un...
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Misrepresentation – giving a false statement to the other party with the intentions to benefit or to exploit the other party than the law can end the contract in that case.