Misrepresentation in Court A misrepresentation may be defined as an unambiguous, false statement
of fact (or possibly of law) which is addressed to the party misled,
which is material and induces the contract. A misrepresentation
renders the contract voidable and it may give rise to a right to
damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
If the misrepresentation would have induced a reasonable man into the
contract the court will presume that it did induce the representee to
enter the contract and the onus of proof is placed on the representor
to show that the representee did not rely on the representation. This
was shown in Museprime Properties Ltd[1], where the judge referred,
with approval, to the view of Goff and Jones: Law of Restitution that,
any misrepresentation which induces a person to enter into a contract
should be a ground for rescission of that contract. This is known as
the objective test.
A false statement of opinion is not a misrepresentation of fact,
Bisset v Wilkinson[2]. However, where the person giving the statement
was in a position to know the true facts and it can be proved that he
could not reasonably have held such a view as a result, then his
opinion will be treated as a statement of fact, as in Smith v Land &
House Property Corp[3]. This rule does not apply where the
misrepresentation was fraudulent and the representee was asked to
check the accuracy of the statement: Pearson v Dublin Corp. There will
...
... middle of paper ...
...itled to rescission,
indemnity and damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Museprime Properties Ltd v Adhill Properties Ltd (1991) 61 P & C R
11, 124
[2] Bisset v Wilkinson# [1927] AC 177
[3] Smith v Land Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7
[4] Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
[5] Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158.
[6] East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733
[7] Downs v Chappell [1996] 3 All ER 344.
[8] Cheshire & Fifoot, p301-2
[9] Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753
[10]
[11] Leaf v International Galleries (1950) 2 KB 86
[12] Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49
[13]Royscott Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 3 WLR 57
[14] Howard Marine & Dredging Co v Ogden & Sons [1978] QB 574
[15] Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
To further prove his point, he gives the testimony included in one of the books,
The truth that He gave the order is sign that He has made it possible.
If Chief Justice John Marshall had claimed that in either case of “Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia” or “Worcester vs.
If he was true, they knew it; if he stilled the waves and raised the dead, they knew it; if he rose from the tomb, they knew it. (Acts 1:21,22) They bore witness to him by word and left their words to us. They bore witness by life, gave up all for him and died for their testimony. Such testimony is the strongest human testimony ever offered to any fact. (Johnson)
it becomes apparent that he was, as a matter of fact, not put on trial
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to a contract to the other party before the contract was made and which was one of the factors which induced the other party to enter the contract. The burden of proof is on BSHC to prove that all the above has been satisfied. WildeJames have indeed made a false statement as they have not actually carried out the survey and have therefore advised BSHC of facts which are untrue. It doesn’t appear that the statement was one of opinion and as WildeJames are experts as the maker of the statement they are in the best position to know the facts (Smith v Land and House Property Corporation). The state ment must have been one of the factors why BSHC entered the contract and doesn’t need to be the only reason Ediginton v Fitzmaurice.
himself played a role in it. He was able to tell us first hand about
In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will discuss facts, main legal issues, majority decisions and reasons for the dissent. This case took place on September 26, 1966 in the court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J wrote the majority decision, while Judge Keating wrote the dissenting decision in the case. I will be applying Natural Law and Legal Realism to the case to argue my position, and ultimately prove that the theory of Natural Law is more applicable to the case.
Disregarding one’s feelings, opinions or perceptions completes the definition of dismissal lying. In Book Three of 1984, O’Brien tortures Winston during his stay in the Ministry of Love, in an attempt to assimilate him to Big Brother’s society and to stop his rebellious spirit. O’Brien exemplifies the concept of the dismissal lie by disregarding Winston’s point of view on the society and his personal pain tolerance while he tortures him through forceful drug injections after failing to answer questions correctly. During the torture, O’Brien asks “'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' 'Four.' 'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?' 'Four.' The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
in that time was able to see and accept the realities of war, so his
believed he could not be stopped and that rules did not apply to him. By being