Misrepresentation

First of all, distinguish a representation from other things such as mere puffs and actual contractual terms. Definition: 'An actionable misrepresentation is an unambiguous false statement of fact made to the claimant and which induces the claimant to enter into the contract with the statement maker' This sheet does not cover negligent misstatements. Remedies for neg MR: S.2(1) MA 67-damages Damages – all losses directly flowing from the negligent MR-the fiction of fraud (Royscott Trust v Rogerson [1991]) Rescission (+ indemnity) or damages in lieu under s2(2) MA 1967 Innocent MR: If representor can prove reasonable / actual belief-innocent misrep Remedies: No automatic right to damages. Claimant will be awarded EITHER :-Rescission (+ indemnity) ; OR Damages in lieu-S.2(2) Misrep Act Remedies: Rescission or damages in lieu-discretionary area CHARACTERISTICS OF A MISREPRESENTATION Unambiguous: McInerny v Lloyd's Bank [1974] False: Avon Insurance Plc v Swire Fraser Ltd [2000] 'Substantially correct' Rix J Statement-conduct Attempts at concealment (Gordon v Selico [1985]) Conduct (Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia WS [2002]) The statement must be a clear and unambiguous false statement of fact not opinion. Expert opinion: Esso v Marden [1976] It used to be thought that a misstatement of law could not constitute a misrepresentation This is no longer the case Pankhania v Hackney LBC [2002] Misrepresentations can be addressed directly to the claimant (Def-Cl) Or, they can be addressed indirectly through a third party (Def-3rd P-Cl) Inducement need not be the sole factor (Edginton v Fitzmaurice [1885[). but it must be a factor (JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom [1983]) If the statement is found to be material, actual inducement will be inferred (Smith v Chadwick (1884), subject to the defence proving otherwise.