Ansewer
Misrepresentation refers to a circumstance where a person is induced to enter into a contract partly or entirely by untrue information made by the other party. Misrepresentation can lead to a contract to be voidable. Voidable contract means there is a valid contract whether is written or verbal. In any voidable contracts, a party has a choice whether to rescind or to continue with the contract. However, there are certain circumstances and elements of misrepresentation that can cause a contract to be voidable. Misrepresentation can occur in a number of ways. Under Section 18 of the Contract Act 1950, misrepresentation includes:-
a) Any positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that
…show more content…
Representation is a statement which induces entry into a contract but which is not part i.e. a tem, of the contract. Misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact made by one party to other which was intended and did induce the latter to enter into the contract. If there is a misrepresentation, a contract entered into as a result of misrepresentation is voidable. In the case of misrepresentation the remedies are:-
A- Rescission
B- Damages
A- Rescission
- Equitable remedy available for all types of misrepresentation.
- Innocent party must exercise choice: to resend or to affirm contract.
- Effect of rescission: parties are put back to their pre-contractual position.
- Notice: Generally, innocent party must notify representor of decision to rescind. If impossible to find representor, contract can be rescinded by conduct of representee- Car and Universal Finance Co. Ltd. V Caldwell(1965)
- Bars to rescission:
• When innocent party affirms contract (after discovering true state of affairs)- Long v. Lloyd(1958)
• When parties cannot be restored to substantially same pre-contractual position (principle of restitution in
…show more content…
Heller & Pnrs. (1964). This tort provides remedy where misstatement made by non-party to contract.
Elements of misrepresentation
A. Untrue statement of fact
• Test of falsity= whether statement is “substantially correct”- see Avon Insurance Plc. V. Swire Fraser Ltd. (2000) per Rix J.
• The notion of “statement” can extend to mere conduct without words. See e.g. Spice Girls v. Aprilia World Services B.V. (2002)
• The following are not untrue statements of fact:
- A mere “puff” or “sales patter”- see e.g. Dimmock v. Hallet (1866)
- Statements of intention, unless at the time of stating the intention the party did not actually have such an intention- see e.g. Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885).
- Statement of opinion, unless the maker of the statement did not actually hold the opinion or had no reasonable grounds on which to base the opinion- see e.g. Bisset v. Wilkinson (1927); Smith v. Land & House Property Corp. (1884), Humming Bird motors Ltd. v. Hobbs
Statement of the Case: This part has the summary of the dispute, and what happened in the lower court and present court by the time that the brief was filed. Also, this part provides important facts and a word by word recall of the case (Statsky, pg. 545).
Making false or misleading statements with the purpose of securing goods or services under the Workers' Compensation Act;
Promissory estoppel is when " one person might rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and the relevant circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract exists" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 333).
(in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory.
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.
The verification principle was therefore clearly based on the idea that statements can only covey factual information if they can be ...
Promissory estoppel is a relatively new development to contract law but it is important doctrine where a non-contractual promise lacking consideration provided...
The doctrine is explained in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co [1893], where the offeror is making an intention to come into the legal a legal bounding by making an offer.
the statements can be used to deceive which is called deception. Concealing information also is
Step One: The area of law this question is concerned with is the presence of a breach of contract and remedies available for the injured parties.
Implied terms – they are not expressed but they are adopted as “obvious” an individual must comply with (e.g) if buying a product and it is not in a good taste the consumer has the right to return it to the owner for exchange or refund.
The opinion was based on proven or honestly believed allegations of fact that was known to those to whom the statement was published or the opinion was based on proven or reasonably likely allegations of fact and that the opinion related to a matter of public interest.’’
Under section 19(A) of the Indian Contract Act, “when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused”. Under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act in case of contract by fraud or misrepresentation, the party whose consent was so caused may insist that the contract shall be performed and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if he representation made had been true.
Instances of Breach: When employers and employees fail to realize each other’s expectation with regard to commitment they have towards each other, it might be perceived as breach of psychological contract. This might occur due to various factors. It might be perceived as breach when the employee discerns a broken promise, say when the employee comes across cut in pay, or denial of promotion when deserved. Other instances being restrained promises (delay in promised bonuses), asking the employee to stay for longer hours and not acknowledging the efforts for same, and expectations of carrying work back home (Vandekerckhove and
The latter party will well be able to rescind where such party had been induced by a misstatement to enter into the contract. This is the general rule.