Made is that of sale of goods where a seller has an

made is that of sale of goods, where a seller has an absolute duty to inform the buyer about
any defects in the goods, since the buyer, being a layman may not be able to find out
himself,
29
Thus comparing the Indian Law of Contracts with regard to misrepresentation with the
English and the French laws regarding the same, we may say that the Indian laws, to a great
attempt negate the chances of a contract being unduly influenced by misrepresentation. And
while they provide sufficient deterrents, they also account for human errors by incorporating
the doctrine of innocent misrepresentation.
CONCLUSION
28 Id.
29 Marsh, Supra note 27, at 137

Over the course of this project I have tried to determine what the term misrepresentation
means and if it could actually be succinctly defined. What I have also tried to look at is the
position with regard to innocent misrepresentation, since that is one issue where there is
always some doubt, since judging the state of mind is a difficult task, as said by Lord
Denning.
In the process of my research I observed that the concept of misrepresentation under the
Indian law has been evolved and has been significantly influenced by that in the Common
law. But in certain ways, it seems to lack. Over time, most legal systems have tended to
adjust their laws in such a way that they are in favour of the aggrieved party, some may have
gone too far, and some still need certain changes, but nevertheless, attempts have been made,
which is something that seems to be lacking in the Indian scenario.
In spite of this, saying that the Indian laws are a complete failure would be an exaggeration.
In the researcher’s opinion, probably the reason why the Indian laws have not been altered is
that human error and negligence needs to be accounted for in contracts, and imposing a duty
as strong as the English or the French laws would take it too far, which in any case should be
avoided, as there needs to be certain room for human error as well. Innocent
misrepresentation needs to be accounted for, since awarding damages, without looking at
whether the party had an intention to deceive or not would be a very constrained approach.
On another note, by distinguishing between fraud and misrepresentation, the India laws have
brought some clarity into the laws and the contractual liabilities of contracting parties. This is
one issue on which the India laws seem to be better than most other legal systems which lack
this distinction, as in this project, the French and the German legal systems.
Thus, we may say that there is not much scope for change in the Indian laws with respect to
misrepresentation, and they seem to fairly clear on the issue, with sufficient deterrent and
punitive measures.