Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Misrepresentation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd- recklessness must be a 'flagrant disregard for the truth'
      - With v O'Flanagan- harder to prove silence/failure to disclose a change of circumstances is fraudulent. You must prove it was due to dishonesty/deliberate and NOT due to a failure to realise a duty to disclose
  - - - Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson- negligent misrep treated like fraudulent
      - Howard Marine- If they rely on something they did not have reasonable grounds to rely on this can be negligent
- - - - Bisset v Wilkinson- general rule- estimate with nothing to go off is an opinion/sales (opinion on how many sheep could be kept on land where sheep had never been on the land)
      - Smith v Land and House property Corporation- where the representor has a lot more knowledge then the representee, this can amount to misrep (especially where their knowledge proves what they are saying is incorrect) where the facts are known to both parties, unlikely to be a statement of fact
      - Esso v Mardon- D gave an estimation using an investigation made without reasonable care (when stated/reasonably assumed it was a careful estimate) and had the expertise to carry out a good investigation and so made a false statement of fact. Or where they don't believe the statement
    - - Beattie v Edbury- general- statement of future intention cannot be known to be true at the time, so it is more of a promise and not a statement (not actionable misrep)
      - Wales v Wadham- where statemenet of future intention made and they change their mind before contracting, D does not have a duty to disclose their change of intention
      - Edgington v Fitzmaurice- if at the time of making the statement, they know their promise of future intention is impossible/they do not intend to do it, they are misrepresenting their existing intention at that time
  - - - Nottingham Patent Brick & Tile Co v Butler- Exception: half truths- to say something technically true, but misleading (withheld info but still mae some statement) can amount to misrep
      - With v O'Flanagan- Exception- continuing representations- if D makes a representation which then becomes false before contracting, D has an obligation to inform C (different to Wales v Wadham as this relates to a statement of existing fact, not future intention)
      - Uberrimae Fidei Contracts- exception- contracts made in utmost good faith (where one party requires knowledge from another party like insurance, trustee and beneficiary)
- - - - Yes- it is material- Smith v Chadwick- burden then shifts to D to rebut the presumption C was induced
      - No- not material- Museprime Properties Ltd v Adhill Properties Ltd- C then must prove it subjectively induced them
    - - Redgrave v Hurd- matters not that enquiries were made but that the statement was not relied upon. There is no duty to check representor's statement
      - Smith v Eric Bush- the more commercial/resources available, the more likely it may be for C to be found liable for contributory negligence if C carries out bad investigations or no investigation (or if deemed reasonable to carry out investigations)
- - - - McInerny v Lloyds Bank- representor will not be liable if representee places their own unreasonable construction on the statement
    - - Avon Insurance plc v Swire Fraser Ltd- the difference between the statement and the truth must not have been likely to induce a reasonable person in position of C to enter the contract
    - - Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp- actionable- a statement asserting a given state of affairs
      - Dimmock v Hallett- not actionable- mere puff- a lot can be allowed for sales talk, including describing land as 'fertile and improvable'
      - Gordon v Selico- conduct can be a statement (including concealment)
      - Statement of law can now give rise to an actionable misrep