Contract - Misrepresentation

Contract - Misrepresentation - National University of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
National University of Singapore Faculty of Law LAW OF CONTRACT 2004/2005 (IV) MISREPRESENTATIONS A. Introduction : Recall the distinction between term/representation: whether the statement is promissory or representational? If a statement is a term of contract, its breach will lead to contractual remedies such as termination and/or damages. If a statement is a representation, its breach (assuming the breach is actionable) will not result in contractual remedies. Most of the remedies will be in tort. B. Elements of an operative misrepresentation : 1. A false unambiguous statement: In this context: (i) pure silence is not misrepresentation 718 ; but (ii) a half truth may be a misrepresentation: Dimmock v. Hallett (1866) 2 Ch App 21; a misrepresentation may be by conduct: Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV (2002) E.M.L.R. 27. (iii) if a representation is made which was true at the time but later becomes untrue there may be a duty to correct it: Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV (2002) E.M.L.R. 27.; and (iv) active concealment of a fact (as opposed to mere passive non-disclosure) may be a misrepresentation. The fact that was concealed must be the deciding factor. Horsfall v. Thomas 2. Of fact, and not (i) of opinion (see Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927] AC 177; Esso Petroleum Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] QB 801); The special skills the representor has or professes to have can determine 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
whether the statement is one of opinion or fact. Esso Petroleum Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] QB 801 ii) of intention ( Wales v. Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199; Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459); or Future intent does not constitute false statement if intent changes in the future. Wales v. Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199 However, if statement of intent was never true in the first place (at the point where the statement was made), it can be a false statement. Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 (iii) of law (but this is controversial. See Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 and Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349). For an illustration of a statement of fact, see Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Malaysia Mining Corporation Berhad [1989] 1 WLR 379. 3. Which was "addressed to the party misled" : either directly or indirectly. See Peek v. Gurney [1873] L.R. 6 L 377; and Commercial Banking of Sydney v. R.H. Brown and Co.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

Contract - Misrepresentation - National University of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online