Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation. The court controversially decided that under the Act, the appropriate measure of damages was the same as that for common law fraud, or damages for all losses flowing from a misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable.
Negligent misstatement is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a tort based upon the 1964 obiter dicta in Hedley Byrne v Heller [72] where the House of Lords found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.
Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Special Provisions) Act 1978: 202 In force Bank Pertanian Malaysia Act 1969: 9 Repealed by Act 684 Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad Act 2008: 684 In force Bank Simpanan Nasional Act 1974: 146 In force Bank Simpanan Nasional Berhad Act 1997: 571 Not yet in force Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949: 33 In force
The following is a list of acts of the Parliament of Malaysia by citation number. The list includes all principal laws of Malaysia enacted after 1969 and pre-1969 laws which have been revised by the Commissioner of Law Revision under the authority of the Revision of Laws Act 1968. Repealed acts and acts not yet in force are stricken through.
Economic torts [l] typically involve commercial transactions, and include tortious interference with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from contractual cases involving misrepresentation in that there is no privity of contract; these torts are likely to ...
It held that a non-fraudulent misrepresentation gave no right to damages. This was decided decades before Hedley Byrne v Heller, where damages for negligent misrepresentation were introduced in English law, and, thus, it would today be regarded as wrongly decided under the tort of negligent misrepresentation.
The leading case in English law is Derry v.Peek, [2] which was decided before the development of the law on negligent misstatement. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v.Heller & Partners Ltd it was decided that people who make statements which they ought to have known were untrue because they were negligent, can in some circumstances, to restricted groups of claimants be liable to make compensation for ...
Damages for misrepresentation. (1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the ...