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