Misrepresentation cases
Lec 13 &14 &15
Precontractual, can be voidable for misrep
Void- automatically of no effect from very beginning. Contract is treated as if it had
never been made
Voidable- may be set aside by one party. Setting aside isn’t automatic but requires
action. Once contract is set aside, it is treated as if it had never been made.
STRUCTURE:
1. Distinguish a term of contract from a representation
2. Identify an actionable misrepresentation
3. Distinguish between the different types of misrep
4. Analyse remedies for misrep
1: representation of a term
Intention of party’s paramount (Heilbut, Symons & co by Buckleton)
Indicators:
Timing of statement- representation if long time gap, term is interval is
smaller (Routledge v McKay)
Statements reduced to writing- not written is likely to be a representation, if
written likely to be a term (Routledge v McKay)
Importance of statement- if importance isn’t conveyed is a representation, if
importance is conveyed the is a term (Bannerman v White)
Specialist knowledge & skill- less knowledge shown is a representation, if
special skill is possessed then is a term (Dick Bentley productions v Harold
Smith motors term) (Oscar chess v Williams representation)
Opportunity to verify- if opportunity is given its representation, if opportunity
is given but not used is a term (Ecay v Godfry)
2: actionable misrepresentation
A false statement of fact which induces the other party to enter into the contract.
1. False statement of fact: only a false statement of fact will form basis of an
actionable misrep. Statements of future intentions, law or opinion aren’t
actionable.
Statement of future intention- ‘a misrep as it the state of a man’s
mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact’ Bowen LJ (Edington v
Fitzmaurice)
Statements of law- won’t form an actionable misrep. Can be mixed
statement of law and fact (Solle v Butcher)
Statements of opinion- won’s form basis of actionable misrep.
Opinion: (Bisset v Wilkinson) fact: (Smith v land and house property
corporation)
Was statement made honestly?
Does party imply they have info on which they base their opinion?
Does party have skill/knowledge? (Esso petroleum v Mardon)
False statement:
Lec 13 &14 &15
Precontractual, can be voidable for misrep
Void- automatically of no effect from very beginning. Contract is treated as if it had
never been made
Voidable- may be set aside by one party. Setting aside isn’t automatic but requires
action. Once contract is set aside, it is treated as if it had never been made.
STRUCTURE:
1. Distinguish a term of contract from a representation
2. Identify an actionable misrepresentation
3. Distinguish between the different types of misrep
4. Analyse remedies for misrep
1: representation of a term
Intention of party’s paramount (Heilbut, Symons & co by Buckleton)
Indicators:
Timing of statement- representation if long time gap, term is interval is
smaller (Routledge v McKay)
Statements reduced to writing- not written is likely to be a representation, if
written likely to be a term (Routledge v McKay)
Importance of statement- if importance isn’t conveyed is a representation, if
importance is conveyed the is a term (Bannerman v White)
Specialist knowledge & skill- less knowledge shown is a representation, if
special skill is possessed then is a term (Dick Bentley productions v Harold
Smith motors term) (Oscar chess v Williams representation)
Opportunity to verify- if opportunity is given its representation, if opportunity
is given but not used is a term (Ecay v Godfry)
2: actionable misrepresentation
A false statement of fact which induces the other party to enter into the contract.
1. False statement of fact: only a false statement of fact will form basis of an
actionable misrep. Statements of future intentions, law or opinion aren’t
actionable.
Statement of future intention- ‘a misrep as it the state of a man’s
mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact’ Bowen LJ (Edington v
Fitzmaurice)
Statements of law- won’t form an actionable misrep. Can be mixed
statement of law and fact (Solle v Butcher)
Statements of opinion- won’s form basis of actionable misrep.
Opinion: (Bisset v Wilkinson) fact: (Smith v land and house property
corporation)
Was statement made honestly?
Does party imply they have info on which they base their opinion?
Does party have skill/knowledge? (Esso petroleum v Mardon)
False statement:
