Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former British colonies, e.g. India.
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 (c. 7) is a United Kingdom act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which amended the common law principles of misrepresentation.Prior to the Act, the common law position was that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent.
Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.
the nature of the misrepresentation; here it was a £5m land sale, but the misrepresentation would only cost £18k to put right; loss caused were the contract upheld; this is a power to award damages where none were previously recoverable. Because of s 2(3) this is not compensation for the loss, but damages for the misrepresentation as such.
Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact.
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 is a leading contract law case from New Zealand on the issue of misrepresentation. [1] The case establishes that a mere misstatement of opinion given fairly cannot amount to a misrepresentation. [2] [3] [4] The case was heard in London by the Privy Council, which was then the final appeal court for New Zealand.
Fraudulent misrepresentation, misrepresentation through action Gordon v Selico (1986) 18 H.L.R. 219 is an English contract law on the subject of misrepresentation by action. It was held that positive actions - in this case, the concealment of dry rot - could amount to operative misrepresentations.