Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Misrepresentation - Coggle Diagram
Misrepresentation
-
-
Remedies
-
Damages: damages for fraudulent misrep require a higher standard of proof which is ‘reasonable foreseeability’ whereas negligent misrep under Hedley Byrne is more limited as damages are subject to the test of remoteness i.e. relates to the requirement that the damage must be of a foreseeable type. In negligence claims, once p has established that d owes them a duty of care and is in breach of that duty which has caused damage, they must also demonstrate that the damage was not too remote.
Rescission and Damages:
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant: UK Sup noted that a contracting entity would be entitled to sue for rescission and damages even though the negligent misrep was not actually made to it in circumstances where the rep is made and the person is addressed becomes the agent of the person by whom the contract is concluded. As a matter of general principle, a rep made during contractual negotiations for the purpose of inducing a contract will ordinarily be regarded as continuing until the contract is actually concluded because it will generally be reasonable for the representee to continue to rely on it. This case is likely to be of persuasive authority before the Irish cts. Whilst there is nothing new in the concept of a continuing misrep, what is new is the ruling that the misrep can be acted upon by a legal person to whom no such rep was made and which was not even in existence at the time the rep was made. Liability for pre-contractual or other misrep may be excluded or limited in the agreement ultimately signed, but in circumstances where it is not, this decision will undoubtedly be of significance.