Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, [1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, [2] or (ii) does not believe in the statement, [3] or (iii) is reckless as to ...
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading [1] statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. [2] [3] The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).
It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected ...
Specifically, deceit requires that the tortfeasor makes a factual representation, knowing that it is false, or reckless or indifferent about its veracity, intending that another person relies on it, who then acts in reliance on it, to that person's own detriment. Deceit dates in its modern development from Pasley v. Freeman. [1]
In contract, the damages are limited to what may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties. In fraud, they are not so limited. The defendant is bound to make reparation for all the actual damages directly flowing from the fraudulent inducement. The person who has been defrauded is entitled to say:
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.
Damages for misrepresentation. (1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the ...
The Divisional Court held that Lindsay could not recover the handkerchiefs from Cundy. Blackburn J, giving judgment, held the following. [5]The rule of law has been thoroughly established—the cases are numerous, and I need not cite them—that where a contract is voidable on the ground of fraud, you may avoid it, so long as the goods remain in the man's hands who is guilty of the fraud, or ...