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.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 12 pages?