Contract - Misrepresentation: Cases And Legislation

The answer is Avon v Swire Fraser because it supports the argument that there was no misrepresentation in this case. Avon v Swire Fraser is a case that dealt with the issue of materiality and misrepresentation. In that case, it was held that a misrepresentation must be material in order to affect the contract. In this scenario, the fact that work was delegated to other staff members due to high volumes of customers and increased workload would be considered reasonable and not a misrepresentation. Therefore, the reasonable person would not have contracted based on this issue.

In this case, the conduct of the band member declaring an intention to leave the band before the photoshoot can be seen as misleading. By making this declaration, the band member gave the impression that she would still be part of the band for the photoshoot, leading Aprilla to believe that the pictures would be usable for publicity. However, when the band member actually left the band, the pictures became unusable, causing harm to Aprilla. Therefore, the conduct of the band member can be considered as misrepresentation in this case.

In the case of Esso v Mardon, the court held that the representation made by Esso regarding the potential profitability of a petrol station was considered a term rather than a mere opinion. This is because Esso had specialist knowledge in the industry and their opinion on the amount of custom the representee would receive was relied upon. Therefore, the exclusion to the rule on opinions applies in this case, allowing the representee to rely on Esso's statement as a contractual term.

not-available-via-ai

Esso v Mardon is the correct answer because this case established the principle that a statement can be relied upon if the person making the statement had specialist knowledge, even if the statement is non-factual. In this case, Esso made a statement about the potential sales of a petrol station, based on their expertise in the industry. Despite the statement being inaccurate, the court held that Esso had a duty of care towards Mardon and should be held liable for the losses incurred due to the reliance on their specialist knowledge. This case set a precedent for similar situations where non-factual statements made by experts can still be relied upon.

In the case of Redgrave v Hurd, the question is asking whether a misrepresentation can still be claimed even if the person accepting the offer did not check the paperwork. The correct answer is yes because even if the person didn't check, they still relied on the misrepresentation.

The correct answer is s. 2 (1). This section and part of the act is referred to as the "fiction of fraud."

Routledge v McKay is the correct answer because this case established the principle that a person cannot be held liable for passing on false statements if they innocently believed them to be true. In this case, the court ruled that the defendant, Routledge, was not liable for passing on false statements about the age and ownership history of a motorcycle because he genuinely believed the information to be true based on the log book. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the false statements made by previous owners.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller, the court held that although there was no contractual duty between the bank (C) and A, there was a special relationship between them. A had asked the bank for information about B's financial situation before paying for advertising services. The bank advised that B was "considered good for its ordinary business engagements." Based on this advice, A paid for the services, but B later went into liquidation. A brought an action against the bank for negligent misrepresentation. However, the court found that the bank had excluded their liability for any misstatement with the wording "without responsibility." Therefore, the bank was not held liable for the misrepresentation.

In the case of Dimmock v Hallett, the court ruled that a "puff" cannot be relied upon as a "statement of fact." The defendant in this case argued that advertising two lots of land were let was merely an advertising puff to initiate negotiation for a third patch of land. However, it was found that this statement was a "half truth" rather than a puff, as the representee relied on it in deciding to purchase. Therefore, the correct answer is Dimmock v Hallett.

The correct answer is Edgington v Fitzmaurice. In this case, the investment was made based on the intentions laid out in a prospectus. The misrepresentee successfully argued that these intentions were solid enough to be considered as terms when they used the money to pay off existing debts. However, it is mentioned that in normal cases, it would be difficult to rely solely on intentions as they can change over time.

In the case of Spice Girls v Aprilla, a change in circumstances occurred which failed to be disclosed. This means that there was a change in the situation or conditions that affected the agreement between the Spice Girls and Aprilla, but one party failed to inform the other party about this change. This failure to disclose the change in circumstances can be seen as an exception to the general rule that parties are not required to disclose information unless there is a specific duty to do so.

In the case of Bannerman v White, the purchaser clearly stated that he would not buy the hops if sulphur had been used. This statement was considered a "term" of the contract because the purchaser would not have entered into the contract if he had known sulphur was used. The court ruled in favor of the purchaser, stating that a misrepresentation had been made by the seller, and the contract was therefore void.

not-available-via-ai

The case of Helibut v Buckleton established the intention test, which makes it difficult to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. In this case, a company sold shares claiming to be a rubber merchant, but it was later discovered that they were not. Despite the poor performance of the shares, it was not considered fraudulent because it was challenging to prove that the statement was knowingly false at the time it was made. This case highlights the difficulty in proving fraudulent misrepresentation and the need to establish the intention of the representor.

In Attwood v Small, the representee arranged for an investigation to assess the mine they were interested in. The investigation, although incorrect, declared the same results as presented by the representor. However, because the representee conducted their own investigation and still chose to continue with the contract based on the results, they nullified any opportunity to claim for misrepresentation. Therefore, the correct answer is Attwood v Small.

not-available-via-ai

In Keates v Cadogan, the case involved a landlord who failed to disclose that the property was infested with mice. The court ruled that the landlord had a duty to disclose this information as it was a material fact that could affect the habitability of the property. Therefore, the situation described in the question, where the landlord did not disclose the habitability of the house, aligns with the case of Keates v Cadogan.

The Misrepresentation Act brought two changes to claiming a negligent misrepresentation. Firstly, the act states that the misrepresentor must prove that they genuinely believed in the truth of their statement. This means that they cannot simply claim ignorance or lack of knowledge. Secondly, the act eliminated the need to prove a duty of care in a negligent misrepresentation claim. This makes it easier for the misrepresentee to establish a claim. However, the act does not address the issue of confusion regarding whether remoteness applies or not in such claims.