Damages for negligent misrepresentation under MA 1967 s. (2 (1) MA 1967 s. 2 (1): “Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.” The burden of disproof is quite onerous, cf in example Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A. Ogden & Sons Ltd (1978)
The defence ensures that the defendant is no worse off by having to make restitution. While disenrichment is to some extent dealt with by the traditional estoppel defence, that defence does not go... ... middle of paper ... ...the correctness of the wide view, provided that the need for a sufficient causal link is clearly recognized.. In my view, Mr Moriarty was right to make that concession. Taking a wide view of the defence, facilitates ‘a more generous approach.. To the recognition of the right to restitution.” National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v. Waitaki International Processing (NI) Ltd. D had had told the bank of the mistake and, despite the bank’s insistence, believed throughout that it was not entitled to the money. The defendant then lost the money by investing it, without security, in a company that become insolvent.
By concentrating on the object of the doctrine, however, the author reflects accurately the courts' modern trend of relying less on an abstract theory justifying the doctrine, and more on an objective interpretation of the contract and the practical situation before them in order to produce a just result. We will see how this development has affected both the ambit of the doctrine and its effects. A contract is frustrated if an event occurs after the contract has been formed which makes it impossible to perform it and this event is outside the control of the parties to the contract. This definition is as valid now as it was when the seminal case of Taylorv Caldwell(1863) was decided. The underlying principle was that there was an implied condition that the parties would be excused from their obligation if performance (literally and legally!)
Also, to amount to a misrepresentation, the false statement must induce the contract. If Brian had entered into the contract immediately after Brenda made her declaration, then she would have been held liable on the grounds of inducement into contract, by fraudulent misrepresentation. For a statement to operate as inducement it must fulfill several requirements, but the main one in this case would be the misrepresentation must be the material inducement. There will be no liability on the part of the misrepresentor, if the claimant relied on her or his own judgement or investigators (Jimmy). For an example, I’ll make reference the case of Atwood v Small, 1838, purchasers of a mine was told to exaggerate statements as to its earning capacity by the vendors.
Now that the information and facts are presented in order or sequence, we can now analyse it and determine if Tina has a chance to sue for a breach in contract and if not, if there are other ways for getting compensation for the damage caused to the garage. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation is distinguished from innocent misrepresentation by the intentional deceit of one party by the other (Andy Gibson and Douglas Fraser, 2007, pg 325). The following elements must be established in order to amount to a fraudulent misrepresentation; • There must be a false statement of fact, not opinion, unless the person making the statement did not hold that opinion, • The representation must be untrue, • The person making the representation must know that it is false, or not believe in its truth, or be recklessly careless, • The representation must be made with the intention that the other party acts in reliance to it, • The statement must actually deceive the innocent party, i.e. be acted upon, and • The innocent party must have suffered some loss. Because a contract induced by fraud is voidable at the opinion of the deceived party, it remains binding until set aside (Andy Gibson and Douglas Fraser, 2007, pg 325).
Blameworthiness test derive from behavior of a reasonable person and distribute liability on culprit parties. Parties who does not act as reasonable man and at fault will shoulder the liability. Factors of contributory negligence Defendant must show that plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for their own safety which caused the damage. It is not necessary for plaintiff t... ... middle of paper ... ...iry. All these actions suggest that the plaintiff was capable of understanding what he was doing.
English Law's Uses of the Concept of Fault When Deciding Liability or Guilt Fault is regarded as blame, or responsibility for doing something wrong. This concept of fault is integral to the English legal system when it comes to deciding guilt of liability. In fact, in many areas of law if fault could not be assigned, the system would fall apart as liability can only be found if fault is established first. Fault is particularly important to Tort law, where fault is often a requirement of the mens rea. In these cases it will have to be proved that a certain state of mind was present in the defendant, which is known was tort requiring an element of fault as it shows that the defendant was at fault.
(b) Does is relate to the pretender? (C) Has it been propagandized? (d) Does any of the mitigation implement? Jones says that infringement of right is safeguarding a person from deceitfully attributing him to statement which may violate his reputation with others. He also says that it should be distinctive with any deceitful statement which does not inflict any dama... ... middle of paper ... ...dience wish to use the concepts which have already been scrutinized above are surely and certainly veracious.
Issue To determine based on the case facts, if Alma can sue Norma for negligence based on tort law or not. Rule To establish negligence, it is imperative that three main conditions are to be satisfied. Firstly, it needs to be proved that the defendant had a duty to care directed towards the plaintiff. Secondly, there needs to be a breach of this duty due to the negligent conduct of the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff should have suffered harm due to the duty to care being breached by the defendant (Lindgren, 2011).
2. Each of Gettier’s cases appears to depend on the agent in the case being luckily correct in believing what he does. Does this point to a solution to the problem raised by Gettier’s paper? (Gettier, 1963) argues that justified true belief is not knowledge as it is not sufficient to be knowledge but it is one of the criteria of being knowledge. In a bid to prove this, two cases are presented in the paper, which are cases appear to depend on the agent being luckily correct in believing what he does.