Roads to misrepresentation

1) Misrepresentation through third party: Commercial banking company of Sydney v. RH Brown 2) Misrepresentation by Conduct: Walters v. Morgan 3) The Justification of the rule appears to be that a representation, once made, is deemed to be a continuing representation so that, once it becomes false to the kno ledge of the representor and he fails to correct it !be" the contract is made), it amounts to misrepresentation: Shankland & co v. Robinson & co !"# ") The statement is true but still misleading because another half is not told: $otts %atent Brick and &ile company v. B'tler ())
#

$eneral %ule: &cience does not lead to actionable misrepresentation : BCC* v. +li 'nother Case confirms $otts patent brick and tile v. B'tler is Spice girls ltd. +prilla world service.

Statements
1) (f the statement falls in the abo)e roads to misrepresentation then it is statement of fact *ther ise 2) &tatement is Mere +uff: ,immock v. Hallett ()) , $

3) &tatement is opinion: Bisset v. Wilkinso , $ - ./ception: -sso %etrole'm ltd v. Mardon , . ") &tatement of (ntention: !could claim breach of term) *riginally (ntention promised but later not performed: Wales v. Wadham 1011 ,$ *riginally intention as different from hat intention promised: -dgington v. /it0ma'rice ((1 , . as

+ctionable Misrepresentation The &tatement amounts to 2act3 The &tatement made contract3 as intended to induce the party into

The &tatement made did induce the party into the contract3
1) The representee in4uire about the statement +twood v. Small ith a professional:

2) The %epresentee entered the contract because of other moti)es: 2-B /asteners company v. Marks3 Bloom and company 3) The %epresentee entered the contract Mi/ed Moti)es: -dgington v. /it0ma'rice ") (f %epresentor clears the misrepresentation before the contract is form: Shankland v. Robinson 5) &tatements made in social conte/t may not amount to misrep: Cha'dhry v. %rabhakar 6) (2 the %epresentation did not relied on the statement at all: Horsfall v. &homas4 Smith v.Chadwick

&ypes of Misrepresentation
2raudulent: ,erry v. %eek !7urden of +roof 8ifficult) !7urden *f +roof on the %epresentee) 9egligent !Common la ): Hedley Byrne v. Heller %artners !7urden of +roof 8ifficult) !.)en if no Contract ./3 Tort) !7urden of +roof on the representee) 9egligent !:egislation): Misrepresentation +ct !)5 Section " 6 7 !;unless he pro)es reasonable grounds to belie)e and did belie)e up to the time the contract as made that the facts represented ere true3) !7urden of +roof on the %epresentor) # 8ifficult to pro)e for the representor that he had reasonable grounds to act as a negligent: Howard Marine & ,redging.co v. + 8gden and Sons 8amages under 9egligent !legislation) .4ual to damages recei)able in 2raudulent: Royscot v. Rogerson

(nnocent: 'n innocent misrepresentation is a misrepresentation neither fraudulent nor negligent misrepresentation3

hich

Remedies
'll 3 types of Misrepresentation lead to right to %escind <o e)er, there are 7ars to rescind: 'ffirmation: 9ong v. 9loyd :apse of time: 9eaf v. *nternational :alleries %estitution: Clarke v. ,ickson

(f 8amages are to be a arded then: May claim damages for lost of profit: %arabola v. Browalia
<o e)er, the amount of the damages is at the discretion of the court: R';ley -lectronics v. /orsyth

9e

Changes in $reen Colour

Corrections in %ed Colour

Representor< the one ho makes the misrepresenting statement

Representee< The one ho listen or is induced into the contract because of the misrepresenting statement