Misrepresentation - Cases Flashcards
(11 cards)
What happened in Bissett v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177?
Case law example of opinion not being actionable misrepresentation.
Defendant sold claimant some land which he stated could hold 2000 sheep. The defendant had no knowledge of sheep farming and this was just opinion, the land actually could not hold that many. The courts held that mere opinion can not be misrepresentation unless it is from someone who claims specialist knowledge.
What caselaw examples support the 5 situations that generally are not considered misrepresentation.
Opinion- Bissett v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
Sales talk - Dimmock v. Hallett (1866)
What happened in Dimmock v Hallett (1866)?
Casals example of salestalk or ‘mere puff’ not being considered actions misrepresentation.
The defendant sold land they described as ‘fertile and improbable’, this was not the case but the courts held that this salestalk was not misrepresentation.
What is the legal principle in Edington v. Fitzmaurice 1885?
Generally statements of future intent are considered intentions rather than statements of fact and therefore can’t be considered misrepresentation.
However the courts ruled in this case that where one party deliberately misleads the other about what their intentions are then they’re may be actionable misrepresentation.
In is case the claimant was a shareholder in a company that requested a loan from him ‘to grow the business’ but the loan was actually to pay its debt.
What is the legal principle in Solle v. Butcher 1950
Generally statements of law are not considered misrepresentations as there is a presumption that everyone knows the law. However it is often difficult to distinguish between statements of law and statements of fact. In this case the courts ruled that the defendant had made a statement of fact and so there was actionable misrepresentation.
What is the legal principle behind With v. O’Flanagan 1936?
This is an example of when silence can be considered misrepresentation.
In this case the defendant sold his medical practice, he correctly valued it at £2000 however by the time the claimant came to sign the contract takings had fallen to £5 a month due to ill health. The defendant did not tell the claimant this, and the courts ruled that this change in circumstances should have been disclosed.
What is the legal principle set out in Spice Girls v. Aprilia world service BV 2000.
Example of misrepresentation by conduct. The spice girls appeared together in a commercial shortly before entering a contract with Aprilia giving the impression they intended to stY together when they knew Geri would shortly be leaving
What is the legal principle set out in Horsefall v. Thomas 1862?
For a statement or action to be considered misrepresentation it must have induced the other party to contract, it stands therefore that the other party must be aware of the statement or conduct in question prior to contracting.
In Horsefall v Thomas the defendants sold a gun and attempted to conceal a deficit in the item. The gun was offered for inspection to the claimant but they did not inspect it, and so were not influenced by the concealment to contract.
What is the legal principle behind Atwood v. Small 1838
The sellers of a mine made inaccurate and exaggerated statements about earning capacity.
The buyers had the statements independently checked by their own experts who erroneously confirmed it.
There was therefore no misrepresentation as the buyers did not contract based on their sellers statement but on the words of their own experts
What is the legal principle behind JEB Fasteners Ltd. v. Mark Bloom & co 1981?
The misrepresentation made must have influenced the other party to contract.
In this case the defendants audited a set of accounts for a company and incorrectly stated the value of the company’s stocks.
The defendants had reservations about the stock price but were interested in obtaining the services of 2 experienced directors who worked at the company and so chose to take over the company for a nominal sum.
The takeover was not as successful as the claimants hoped and so they sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation of the stock price.
They were not successful as it was determined that the stock price was not what influenced them to contract and that they would likely have contracted anyway to secure the services of the two directors.
What happened in Derry v Peek (1889)?
Lays out the requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation
Lord Herschell:
Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false statement is made either:
1. Knowingly
2. Without belief that it is true
3. Recklessly, carelessly about whether it’s true or false.
In this case the defendants were the owners of a tram company which was authorised by statute to provide power by animals of by steam (subject to consent from the Board of Trade). The company issued a prospectus which stated steam power could be used and the claimant bought shares in the company based on this information. However the Board of Trade did not give their consent to use steam power.
The court found that there was no evidence that he defendants did not believe the information in their prospectus was true. The key element when for fraud cases is honest belief of lack of.
