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 If impossible to find representor, contract can be rescinded by conduct of representee- Car and Universal Finance Co. Ltd.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).
It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre-contractual liability, consideration, reliance and the doctrine as a cause of action or defence and a slight comparison of the standpoints that various jurisdictions hold towards these issues. These arguments would conclude the uncertainty of the doctrine and thus, the difficulty and issues that would be faced with the codification of the estoppel.
(in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory.
Rescission- If a party ends a contract due to false representation the reccsiion applies from the time the contract was formed (ab initio), this means that the contract was never recognised by the law. If restitution isn’t available the innocent party will be bound to the contract. “If any of the following have occurred, the recision will not be possible:
The verification principle was therefore clearly based on the idea that statements can only covey factual information if they can be ...
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.
The distinction between fact and opinion is the key to appreciating the nature of the defence. Honest opinion protects the expression of opinion only – it does not extend to the making of factual statements.
Misrepresentation – giving a false statement to the other party with the intentions to benefit or to exploit the other party than the law can end the contract in that case.
Its aim is to establish a conclusion based on evidence which is supported by one or more claims
Where the contract is unlawful for the causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to be blamed than the plaintiff .
Promissory estoppel is a relatively new development to contract law but it is important doctrine where a non-contractual promise lacking consideration provided...
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.