Misrepresentation

The following scenario gives an idea that it deals with misrepresentation chapter of contract law. My
given answer will consider the scenarios and discuss possible liabilities of misrepresentor.

“An actionable misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made during pre-contractual negotiations
by one party which induces the other party to enter into a contract.” An actionable misrepresentation
claim can now be made in response to misleading statements. Written, oral, and conduct are all
acceptable forms of actionable misrepresentation. If a party raises a question, the seller must not lie, tell
a partial truth, or purposefully conceal; otherwise, silence will normally not constitute a
misrepresentation. The obligation to disclose all important data is present in insurance contracts,
however, the sort of misstatement will determine what damages are available to misrepresentee. There
are three different types of misrepresentation which are wholly innocent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation under the common law or s.2 of misrepresentation
act 1967.

False Statement

Some requirements must be satisfied in order for misrepresentee’s claim to be accepted. A false
statement of fact or a violation of the law must have caused the contact if it had been made to a
reasonable person. Since issue, his statement is more likely to be an inaccurate statement of fact than a
mere "puff". Additionally, according to Bowen LJ, "if the facts are not equally known to both sides, then a
statement of opinion by one who knows the facts best involves very frequently a statement of material
fact, for he implies that he knows facts which justify his opinion.” In this instance, issue but it turned out
that at the time the false statement was made, issue misrepresentor contend that if the statement was
an opinion remark, which normally wouldn't/would qualify as an actionable misrepresentation under the
standards set forth in Bisset v. Wilkinson. Given that misrepresentor was aware/not aware of a fact that
issue, the statement may qualify as a statement of fact since "issue." may be based on an implied
representation.

A statement of intent for the future appears to be as misrepresentation. According to Edgington,

statements on intended behavior in the future would only constitute misrepresentation if they were
made with falsity. This means that declarations of future purpose would only be actionable if the
representor has no intention of carrying out the claimed intent. However, the representee would need to
be informed of any changes in circumstances before to the contract's conclusion. In the case of With v.
O'Flanagan, the representor claimed that the Issue. As a result, the courts determined that when a
representative is aware of a change in circumstances, silence will constitute a misrepresentation. Issue.

Inducement/Reliance

A presumption exists that false statements were made to persuade the representee to sign the contract
Issue. To be clear, the statement need not have been issue. However, if the courts rule that
misrepresentee would have signed the contract even if the misrepresentation had not been made, her
claim will be rejected. If misrepresentee was not aware of the statement, misrepresentor had to
explicitly inform her of the misrepresentation in order for there to be any inducement or reliance.
Reliance would still be valid if one chose not to verify the information. Although the solicitor denied the
chance to check the facts, the fact that the lawyers had misrepresented the annual income as £300 in
Redgrave did not disprove his faith on them; rather, it strengthened it. It is also important to note that,
as a result of Redgrave , an innocent party's damages can currently be lowered to account for their
contributory negligence. Misrepresentee’s reliance on assertion is only supported by the fact that issue,
which are false statements of truth on which misrepresentee relied, making the misrepresentation
actionable. If Misrepresentee(যদি প্রশ্নে না থাকে তখন লিখবেন/ Misrepresentee (যদি
প্রশ্নে থাকে তখন লিখবেন) have a non-reliance clause in their contract, it will be subject to a
reasonableness test, which was confirmed in 2018.

Type of Misrepresentation

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

As defined by Lord Herschell a fraudulent misrepresentation is one which is made either: knowing it to
be false, without belief in its truth, or careless as to whether it be true or false. As per Derry issue would
amount to statements misrepresentor knew were false, amounting to a fraudulent misrepresentation,
triggering liability in the tort deceit. On the basis that this is fraudulent misrepresentation,
misrepresentor would be entitled to more severe remedies.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Next, according to Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964], negligent misrepresentation at common law
may be brought if the careless misstatement results in financial damage. It is challenging to
prove a particular relationship that gives rise to a duty of care in this situation, and the
misrepresentee bears the burden of proof. Issue. Since Misrepresentor lacked legitimate and
justifiable reasons to think her remarks to be accurate, innocent misrepresentation is not
admissible. In summary, S. 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 requires only the proof of
misrepresentation; the burden of proof rests with the misrepresentor, D; this is demonstrated in
the cases of Howard Marine and Dredging v. Ogden and Sons [1978] and Foster v. Action
Aviation [2013]. Since we've already established that there was deception in this case, it
appears that this kind of deception is better to misrepresentors deception. Issue.

Innocent Misrepresentation

We have seen that before 1963, the word “innocent” was used to describe all misrepresentations that
were not fraudulent. In the light of Hedley Byrne and s.2(1) of M A 1967, innocent misrepresentation
occurs where the false statement is made by a person who not only believes it to be true, but also has
genuine and reasonable grounds for that belief. To avoid confusion, “wholly innocent” is a better
description. Issue. As misrepresentor believes/not believes the statement to be true so it is
considered/not considered as innocent misrepresentation.

Remedies

Recission, damages, and indemnity are the available remedies for misrepresentation. Since damages are
rarely awarded as a matter of right in circumstances of innocent misrepresentation, indemnity—a limited
claim—can be helpful. It provides coverage for any costs or losses sustained as a result of signing the
contract. Damages are a common law remedy that are automatically accessible; they would be assessed
in accordance with tort law principles since they are not a requirement of the contract, and
misrepresentee’s name may be able to recover all direct losses resulting from fraud, regardless of
whether those losses were anticipated. Damages are easily attainable for accusations of fraudulent
misrepresentation and, as of the 1960s, negligent misrepresentation. It is up to the court's discretion in
cases of wholly innocent misrepresentation.

On the other hand, rescission is permitted for all forms of misrepresentation. The four bars will
determine whether misrepresentee’s name will be eligible for this equitable remedy. According to the
fact, issuehas/has noy verbally or physically affirmed the contract. In Lloyd 1958, the defendant waived
their right to cancel after accepting payment for a portion of the repairs after discovering the flaws.
When the representee becomes aware of the false statement and waits a reasonable amount of time
before taking action, this is known as affirmation. However, in cases involving negligent
misrepresentation, like Leaf, the clock begins when the contract is signed. On the other hand, in the
fraudulent misrepresentation case Doyle, the clock starts to run once the false statement is revealed.

There hasn't been / has been a delay because issue. If a third party gets rights to the goods under the
terms of the agreement, the innocent party might likewise be unable to cancel the agreement unless
they take specific actions to show they no longer wish to be bound by it. According to what is known,
issue, hence there has been no violation of a third party's right.

In Dickson, damages were granted in place of rescission since the plaintiff was unable to recover the
value of the shares he had invested due to the defendant's misrepresentation. Since none of these
restrictions seem to apply in issue it appears that she still has the right to enter into the contract.

Misrepresentee’s name should make a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation/negligent

misrepresentation/innocent misrepresentation in regard to statements misrepresentor’s statement. This
is a fraudulent misrepresentation, so misrepresentee’s name can claim generous damages and set the
contract aside through a process of recession. In conformity with misrepresentor as the claimant will
have to prove that these misstatements were made fraudulently. Presently, liability cannot be excluded
for fraudulent misrepresentation, so misrepresentor will have no defence.