Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
"Where the action is brought under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act , one possible view is that the deceit rule will be applied by virtue of the fiction of fraud. But the preferable view is that the severity of the deceit rule can only be justified in cases of actual fraud and that remoteness under section 2(1) should depend, as in ...
In India, the federal laws defines misrepresentation under "Misconception Of Fact". This is dealt with under the Indian Penal Code in Section 90, which states: Consent given firstly under fear of injury, and secondly under a misconception of fact, is not consent at all. That is what is explained in the first part of Section 90.
SAS 99 defines fraud as an intentional act that results in a material misstatement in financial statements. There are two types of fraud considered: misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting (e.g. falsification of accounting records) and misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets (e.g. theft of assets or fraudulent expenditures).
It has in the past included in its mission the goal of preventing "fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace". [6] It does so by "collecting reports from consumers and conducting investigations, suing companies and people that break the law, developing rules to maintain a fair marketplace, and educating consumers and ...
It is the misrepresentation that renders it fraudulent. This type of fraud is widespread in countries like the United Kingdom, where due to law enforcement agencies being negligent, jury trials not being mandatory or not even existing at all, and due to corruption, it is impossible to enforce the law through private prosecution or civil remedies.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading [1] statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. [2] [3] The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).
The Hynix court explains the difference between a mistake of law "where the facts are known, but the legal consequences are not, or are believed to be different than they really are" (Century Importers, Inc. v. United States, 205 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000)), and a mistake of fact, "where either (1) the facts exist, but are unknown, or (2 ...
(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract; or (b) the contract has been performed; or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.