Misrepresentation in Court

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