Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The tort of negligence is a cause of action leading to relief designed to protect legal rights [g] from actions which, although unintentional, nevertheless cause some form of legal harm to the plaintiff. In order to win an action for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: duty, breach of duty, causation, scope of liability, and damages.
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.
Scouts Association of Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1968: 409 Superseded by Act 784 Scouts Association of Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1968: 784 In force Second-Hand Dealers Act 1946: 189 In force Securities Commission Act 1993: 498 In force Securities Industry Act 1973: 112 Repealed by Act 280 Securities Industry Act 1983: 280 Repealed by Act 671
Justice of the High Courts of Malaysia (2009–2014) Justice of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia (2014–2018) Yang Arif Dato' Zabariah Mohd. Yusof: 11 April 1959 (age 65) University of Malaya: 5 December 2019: 10 October 2025: 5 years and 44 days Justice of the High Courts of Malaysia (2013–2016) Justice of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia ...
In Malaysia, the Federal Court in Majlis Perbandaran Ampang v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon [2006] 2 AMR 563 followed the decision in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 where it held; pure economic loss is claimable if 1) the damage was foreseeable, 2) the relationship between the parties was one of sufficient proximity, and 3) it is fair, just ...
The two causes of action will be considered in succession, first the one for negligence and second that for fraud. (1) We think the evidence supports a finding that the audit was negligently made, though in so saying we put aside for the moment the question whether negligence, even if it existed, was a wrong to the plaintiff.
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 ...