Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, [1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, [2] or (ii) does not believe in the statement, [3] or (iii) is reckless as to ...
Prior to the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in ...
So where there is a sudden downturn in the property market, a person guilty of deceitful misrepresentation is liable for all the claimant's losses, even if they have been increased by such an unanticipated event. [7] This is subject to a duty to mitigate the potential losses. [8] Contributory negligence is no defence in an action for deceit. [9]
Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction "ought not fairly to be as treated the expression of [that] person's free will".
Extrinsic fraud may be claimed in family law and domestic relations cases. For example, paternity cases are sometimes the subject of extrinsic fraud; the classic case is when a man is encouraged to sign an acknowledgment that he is the father of a newborn baby, thus giving up his right to contest the matter in a filiation action. [5] [6] In Love v.
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 is an English contract law case concerning fraudulent misrepresentation. It illustrates and emphasizes the differing measures of damages for deceit and breach of contract.
The lawsuit includes claims for conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair business practices. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
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.