UOL Y1 Contract Law (Misrepresentation) PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by RapidBaltimore5406
UOL
Tags
Related
- KTR 211 Theme 2 (Part 4) Law of Contract 2024 PDF
- Introduction to Law - Villa College Lecture Notes PDF
- Session 12: Vitiating Elements In The Formation Of A Contract PDF
- Principles of Business Law Past Paper PDF 2024
- Misrepresentation - English Law PDF
- PLS I Week 3 Defective Agreements - Part II Error and Misrepresentation PDF
Summary
This document contains notes on contract law, specifically focusing on misrepresentation. It covers pre-contractual statements, terms and representations, and explores how to differentiate between them. It includes examples and cases relevant to the subject. This document would suit undergraduates studying contract law.
Full Transcript
69 CHAPTER 6: MISREPRESENTATION[MISREP] 1. PRE-CONTRACTUAL STATEMENT[STT] QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE PRE-CONTRACTUAL STTs? EVIDENCE: Term Representation Mere Puff...
69 CHAPTER 6: MISREPRESENTATION[MISREP] 1. PRE-CONTRACTUAL STATEMENT[STT] QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE PRE-CONTRACTUAL STTs? EVIDENCE: Term Representation Mere Puff Part of contract Seller’s stt Sales tactic Breach: Damages Misrep X Sue UESTION: HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TERM & Q REPRESENTATION? EVIDENCE: 1.1 Contractual Cartography Guideline(Discuss b4 discussing misrep) 1.1.1 Importance of Stt > Important stt(term) Asking questions about smth important 1.1.2 Expertise Expert= term Non-expert =representation Oscar Chess v Williams HELD: Stt=representation -> As D X =expert who hasX knowledge Dick Bentley v Harold Smith HELD: Stt=term -> As D = expert in car business .1.3 Time of Contract 1 B4 contract = representation At the time of contract = term 1.1.4 Writing Written = term Unwritten = representation 70 CONCLUSION: Pre-contractual stt = term + representation + mere puff Contractual Cartography Guideline = stt importance + expertise + time + writing 2. FOUR REQUIREMENTS OF MISREP(LIE) QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE 4 REQUIREMENTS OF MISREP? EVIDENCE: 2.1 False Stt(Lie) GR:Silence or failure to disclose info X = misrep unless / duty: 2.1.1 Half Truth Stt Only disclose half of the stt Dimmock v Hallet HELD: Stt = misrep -> As D failed to disclose another part of the stt that the tenants quitted 2.1.2 Later Changes / Inform every time a situation changes With v O'Flanagan HELD: Stt = misrep -> As D X disclose the changes .1.3 Misrep by Conduct 2 Use of misleading or deceptive conduct Spice Girls v Aprilia World Services HELD: Misrep by conduct -> As D misled that all members are tght but two members actually left .1.4 Fiduciary Duty 2 Management / disclose all corruption info .1.5 Uberrimae Fidei(Utmost good faith) 2 / Disclose everything in insurance 71 2.2 False Stt of Past / Present Fact or Law X Truth to lie = opinion ere Opinion M erifiable Opinion V Expert Opinion Opinion by X Check misrep = Opinion by non-expert / Sue expert(knowledge XSue Smith v Land & & skill) Bisset v House Property / Sue Wilkinson HELD: / Check b4 Esso HELD: X Sue as giving opinions Petroleum v Mardon stt = stt of HELD: Stt X = opinion instead opinion as D had of fact expertise Stt of Future itt -> GR: X Sue Wales v Wadham HELD: X Misrep for current itt -> Non-disclosure of wife’s change of itt X negate the agreement Edgington v Fitzmaurice HELD: Misrep as to stt of future itt -> As D Xitt to expand the company Stt of Law -> GR: XSue for misrep even if D gives false law stt Pankhania v Hackney London Borough HELD: / Sue as to law stt as D took money 2.3 Communication All stt above/ communicated directly to the party 2.4 Inducement(Convince Party) Walters v Morgan HELD: Nod, shake & smile = inducement Inducement situations -> Aware of and know false stt or -> X Independent inquiry 72 N on-inducement situations -> X Aware of stt(Horsfall v Thomas) -> Check on your own or -> Know stt = false Redgrave v Hurd * HELD: C / rescind the contract -> As he relied on the stt and failure to check the books Xnegate reliance as / inducement of trust CONCLUSION: 4 Requirements of Misrep = False stt + False stt of past / present fact or law + Communicated + Inducement 3. EFFECT & REMEDIES OF MISREP QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE EFFECT & REMEDIES OF MISREP? EVIDENCE: 3.1 Effect of Misrep Voidable contract(invalidate future terms but validate past terms) 3.2 Remedies of Misrep Rescission(restore the contracting parties back to their original position) Damages 3.3 Bars to Rescission 3.3.1 Impossible Restitution X Restore back to the original position when the subject matter / used or destroyed Clarke v Dickson HELD: X Restore back -> As the shares = worthless due to the wrapping of the company De Molestina v Ponton HELD: Only / rescind the contract completely 73 .3.2 Rights of 3rd Party 3 X Rescind a contract when a bona fide 3rd party holds the goods Crystal Palace FC v Dowle HELD: X Rescind the contract -> As D / passed to another football club(3rd party) Philips v Brooks HELD: Void contract if / fraud -> / Pass to a 3rd party .3.3 Affirmation 3 X Rescind if a representee wishes to continue with a contract Long v Lloyd HELD: X Rescind the contract -> As D accepted and affirmed the contract Peyman v Lanjani HELD: X Affirm the contract -> As P X know the right to rescind .3.4 Lapse of Time 3 X Rescind a contract if X take quick actions when time ends Leaf v International Galleries HELD: X Rescind the contract -> As the time ended between agreeing on the contract and right to rescind 3.4 Remedies of Misrep under CL Fraudulent Misrep Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek HELD: Fraudulent Misrep elements -> Know it to be false -> X Belief in truth or -> Reckless or careless as to true or false 74 oyle v Olby D HELD: D / pay all the damages in tort of deceit as to all foreseen and unforeseen losses 3.5 Remedies of Misrep under Statute(Misrep Act) 3.5.1 Fraudulent Misrep -S.2(1)(Claim damages) 5 Requirements -> Existing contract -> C’s loss -> Assumes that the D =fraudulent even if X -> Unless D / prove stt= true at the time he said it with reasonable grounds Howard Marine v Ogden HELD: Liable for negligent misrep -> As D relied on the wrong Lloyd's Register instead of relying on the registration doc 3.5.2 Negligent Misrep under Statute Existing contract and C’s loss .5.3 Innocent Misrep -S.2(2) 3 / Rescission to claim remedies (GOVT of Zanzibar v British Aerospace ) Exchange rescission for damages based on the value diff William Sindall v Cambridgeshire County Council HELD: Compensated the C -> For the rest of losses after the house lost its value .5.4 S.2(3) 3 Adjust damages based on S.2(1) & S.2(2) CONCLUSION: Misrep effect = void & remedies = rescission + damages
