Misrepresentation
E has entered a contact with Company following the receipt of information which has now turned out to be
false. If it is to rescind the contract and claim damage, it will need to prove that one or more of the …3… pieces
of false information given by E on behalf of Company amount to misrepresentation. The remedies available will
depend of the state of mind with which any such misrepresentation was made.
As far as misrepresentation are concerned, it must be proven that the statement is actionable. E is advise that
misrepresentation to be actionable it must be a unambiguous false statement of existing facts addressed to
the mislead party, which materially induced the mislead party to enter into contract.
1. present statement
Fact or Law - the statement must sufficiently clear and certain degree of certainty Dimmock v Hallet
2. vague statement
Mere puff - is a sales talk and too vague which no reasonable person will believe the facts. Dimmock v Hallet.
3. future statement
1. Statement of opinion – are generally not actionable as there is nothing wrong in giving an opinion.
Further, an opinion cannot be objectively ascertained to be either true or false as the time it was made.
Bisset v Wilkinson unless the time making the opinion the representor had sufficient skill and knowledge
of the field. Esso Petroleum v Mardon
2. Statement of intention - not treated as misrepresentation unless which lead to a statement of opinion
being treated as a false statement of fact, is where there is evidence that the person making the
statement not believe it at the time (not genuinely have intention) it is made as in Edgington v
Fitzmaurice.
4. no statement made
1. In UK contract law, there is no general duty to disclose fact based on the principle of caveat emptor. An
action in misrepresentation required a statement to be made. Thus silence generally does not amount a
misrepresentation. Fletcher v Krell
2. 5 Exception: law impose a duty on the party to say something and if he does not, then his silence would
amount to misrepresentation.
1. Contract of utmost good faith, insurance contract
2. Conduct give wrong impression, obligation to correct it. Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service
3. Fiduciary relationship
4. Change in mind, mean the intention no longer true. No direct authority but its opposite of
change circumstances.
5. Where a statement, which was true when made, becomes false as a result of a change
circumstances, keeping silent may be treated as a misrepresentation. With v O’Flanagan
strict and literal interpretation of the words are true but misleading. Dimmock v Hallet
5. Addressed to mislead party - the misrepresentation must be made by the representor to the representee
either directly or indirectly through an authorised third party. Commercial Banking v RH Brown
6. Relied on statement is an objective test. Museprime v Adhill
Representee to prove:
1. Statement must be one of the factors which led the person to enter into the contract but it does not have
to be the sole or main reason. Edgington v Fitzmaurice
2. The representation must play a real and substantial part of the representee’s decision to enter into the
contract and it is not sufficient for the representee to demonstrate that “he was supported or encouraged
in reaching his decision by the representation”. AG v Royal Bank of Scotland
Representor to prove:
1. the representee was aware of the untruth of the statement. Redgrave v Hurd
E has entered a contact with Company following the receipt of information which has now turned out to be
false. If it is to rescind the contract and claim damage, it will need to prove that one or more of the …3… pieces
of false information given by E on behalf of Company amount to misrepresentation. The remedies available will
depend of the state of mind with which any such misrepresentation was made.
As far as misrepresentation are concerned, it must be proven that the statement is actionable. E is advise that
misrepresentation to be actionable it must be a unambiguous false statement of existing facts addressed to
the mislead party, which materially induced the mislead party to enter into contract.
1. present statement
Fact or Law - the statement must sufficiently clear and certain degree of certainty Dimmock v Hallet
2. vague statement
Mere puff - is a sales talk and too vague which no reasonable person will believe the facts. Dimmock v Hallet.
3. future statement
1. Statement of opinion – are generally not actionable as there is nothing wrong in giving an opinion.
Further, an opinion cannot be objectively ascertained to be either true or false as the time it was made.
Bisset v Wilkinson unless the time making the opinion the representor had sufficient skill and knowledge
of the field. Esso Petroleum v Mardon
2. Statement of intention - not treated as misrepresentation unless which lead to a statement of opinion
being treated as a false statement of fact, is where there is evidence that the person making the
statement not believe it at the time (not genuinely have intention) it is made as in Edgington v
Fitzmaurice.
4. no statement made
1. In UK contract law, there is no general duty to disclose fact based on the principle of caveat emptor. An
action in misrepresentation required a statement to be made. Thus silence generally does not amount a
misrepresentation. Fletcher v Krell
2. 5 Exception: law impose a duty on the party to say something and if he does not, then his silence would
amount to misrepresentation.
1. Contract of utmost good faith, insurance contract
2. Conduct give wrong impression, obligation to correct it. Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service
3. Fiduciary relationship
4. Change in mind, mean the intention no longer true. No direct authority but its opposite of
change circumstances.
5. Where a statement, which was true when made, becomes false as a result of a change
circumstances, keeping silent may be treated as a misrepresentation. With v O’Flanagan
strict and literal interpretation of the words are true but misleading. Dimmock v Hallet
5. Addressed to mislead party - the misrepresentation must be made by the representor to the representee
either directly or indirectly through an authorised third party. Commercial Banking v RH Brown
6. Relied on statement is an objective test. Museprime v Adhill
Representee to prove:
1. Statement must be one of the factors which led the person to enter into the contract but it does not have
to be the sole or main reason. Edgington v Fitzmaurice
2. The representation must play a real and substantial part of the representee’s decision to enter into the
contract and it is not sufficient for the representee to demonstrate that “he was supported or encouraged
in reaching his decision by the representation”. AG v Royal Bank of Scotland
Representor to prove:
1. the representee was aware of the untruth of the statement. Redgrave v Hurd
