Generally, there is
no duty to disclose.
only govern positive
The onus was on the buyer to look into everything, subject to certain
requirement of full, complete & honest disclosure of all facts
insured must disclose everything about the risk being
Existing fiduciary relationship:
lawyer/client, doctor/patient, parent/child.
Requires full disclosure by the stronger party.
Vendors of real estate must disclose latent defects in the property (those not easily
discoverable) which are dangerous or render the property uninhabitable.
- special limits on
- still expanding; not sure how far it extends
must induce (be one of the reasons for) the contract.
ex. if misrepresentation is made but not heard by buyer
ex. if misrepresentation does not convince buyer to buy (checks it out himself)
ex. if buyer already knows misrepresentation is false.
Misrepresentation must be fundamental.
- brought-in by
; did not appear in the textbooks before that.
has not yet been adopted by the SCC
- supported by the fact that rescission is a drastic remedy; makes sense that it should
only take place in situations where misrepresentation is fundamental.
- judge basically assumes
statement that it is a 733i is a misrepresentation (not a promise
or anything else)
makes contract voidable; open to rescission
- plaintiff phones defendant once he discovers it is not a 733i ~
act of rescission
- however, it was
he should have given back the car to show rescission (return
status quo ante
- defendant now argues that plaintiff was
barred from rescission ~ contract was already
in contracts for the sale of land, execution/performance is a bar to rescission (because
agreement & performance are so far apart), subject to two exceptions:
Fraudulent misrepresentation (“fraud unravels all”)
Page 63 of 99