Misrep

Question 1

Defintion of Misrep

Answer 1

A statement of material fact made by one party in order to induce the other into the party which turned out to be untrue

Question 2

Gordon v Selico (CONCEALMENT)

Answer 2

Where painting over dry rot before selling can be considered fruadulent misrepresentation

Question 3

Fletcher v Krell (SILENCE)

Answer 3

Woman applied for postion of governess but failed to reveal she was peviously married - Employer wanted single women
Court held no misrep as she made no false statement

Question 4

Spice Girls v Aprillia 2000 HALF-TRUTH

Answer 4

Spice girls ommitted that one member was going to leave whilst negotiting sponsorship deal.
CoA held was Misrep

Question 5

With v O’Flanagan CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE

Answer 5

C in negotiations with D for purchase of his medical practice. D claimed £2,000 in revenue per annum. D signed contract for purcahse monthes later. Ds revenue had fallen as Ds health declined
- CoA held that consituted misrep as was ongoing inducment until C signed contract

Question 6

Burki v Seventy Thirty 2018 FALSE STATEMENT

Answer 6

C entered into contract with Matchmaking agency, after they made a representation that thousands of wealthy men were on thier platform.
Sued for Misrep after she found out there were only 100men.
Court held was Misrep

Question 7

Esso v Mardon STATEMENT OF OPINION

Answer 7

Tenancy agreement was agreeded after Essos experts gave Mardon an estimate of income, this was inflated massively
Court hekd estinate was an opinon and not fact could be negligent misrep not fraudulent

Question 8

Attwood v Small 1838

Answer 8

C given false information reagrding income generated, when buying a mine,
As they paid their own private surveyors, they didint rely on D’s Misreps

Question 9

Musehill v Adhill

Answer 9

Claimants relied on auctioneers misreps about amount of rent generated. As they relied on it they, it was misrep

Question 10

Derry v Peek

Answer 10

Fruadulent Misrep - “without belief in its truth or recklessly as to whether it was true or false”

Question 11

Remedies for Fruadulent Misrep

Answer 11

Recission and/or damages

Question 12

Hedley v Bryne NEGLIGENT MISREP

Answer 12

HB were interested in working with a Easipower, a company they had not worked with before. They sought a financial refrence from their bank. They proivieded one that turned out to be incorrect. When HB suffered losses from non-payment, they sued the bank. Claim could have succeeded due to assumotpion of resonpisbility, however in this case there was a disclaimer.

Question 13

NEG MISREP REMEDIES

Answer 13

Recission and/or Damages

Question 14

s.2(1) Misrep Act 1967

Answer 14

NEG MISREP
No need for special relationship
Only established there was misrtep and claimant suffered loss
Burden on D to prove they had reasonable grounds to belive its true

Question 15

Salt v Stratstone

Answer 15

Car was described as brand new but was in fact not. Was innocent misrep

Question 16

Remedies for Innocent Misrep

Answer 16

Recession or Damages not both

Question 17

Long v Lloyd CONTRACT IS AFFIRMED

Answer 17

C purchased lorry after being told was in excellent condition. it broke down and seller offered to pay half the repair costs. When it broke down again C wanted to recind the contract
Court held cannot as affirmed contract by keeping it after first breakdown

Question 18

Leaf v INternaitonal Galleries DELAY

Answer 18

C brought painting they belived to be a Constable, 5years later they found out it was not
Court held delay was too long for recession

Question 19

Vigers v Pike RESTITUTION TO PRE-CONTRACT POSITON IS IMPOSSIBLE

Answer 19

Restoriation could not occur because there had been significant extraction from the mine

Question 20

Lewis v Avery - 3rd PARTY HAD GAINED RIGHTS

Answer 20

C sold his car to fraudster who then sold it to innocent third party.
Court held recission was not allowed as car was now owned by innocent third party

Question 21

s.3 Misrep Act 1967

Answer 21

Any contractual term that attempts to exclude liability for misrep shall have no effect unless it satisfies the reasonableness test of UCTA 1977