Example Of Misrepresentation And Fraud

Misrepresentation may be characterized as an explicit, faulty statement of fact or law which is given to the party misled, which is material although this prerequisite is now doubtful and which induces the contract. This definition may be broken down into three distinct elements. The first is that the representation must be an unambiguous bogus statement of fact or law, the second is that it must be given to the party misled and the third is that it must be an inducement to entry into the contract and possibly it must also be material. Fraud are characterized as a faulty representation of a matter of fact, either with words or conduct, with inaccurate allegations, or with the disguise of what should have been unveiled, which misdirects and

In Tan Chye Chew v Eastern Mining Metals , the Contracts Act was not applicable because it was decided in Singapore. The Court stated that the defendant had insufficient evidence to carry out his own inspection and research to determine the truth of the facts their contract. Therefore, there was no fraud in the appellant part. Referring to Weber v Brown , the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in relation to a fraudulent misrepresentation about the number of rubber trees in an estate on which the defendant had the privilege to purchase, a right which he transferred for valuable consideration to the plaintiff. The number of trees represented had been discovered to be more than the number actually existing in the farm. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court ruling that the defendant had made the misrepresentation in a false and deceitful manner, and that had induced the plaintiff to acquire and subsequently exercise the right of

The court held that the defendant had breach his representation with respect to the facilities provided in the library, although the plaintiff had not suffered any actual loss or damage. Other than that, in Kluang Wood Products Sdn Bhd & Anor v Hong Leong Finance Bhd & Anor , the first respondent must provide the first appellant with a bridging loan and end finance. The first respondent did not provide the end finance. Hence, the court held that it was reasonable for the first appellant to act on said information as a result of its damage. Then it can be rescission ab