Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Land and House agreed to buy the Hotel. However, Mr. Fleck, who had been overdue with rent, went bankrupt just before transfer of title. Land and House Property Corp. refused to complete the transaction, defending Smith's specific performance suit on the basis that the description of Fleck's "virtues" was grounds for misrepresentation. [1]
The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former British colonies, e.g. India.
Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. [1] Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante ).
A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken about the terms or subject-matter contained in a contract. [7] This kind of mistake is more common than other types of mistake. [ citation needed ] One must first distinguish between mechanical calculations and business errors when looking at unilateral mistake.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts is in accord with this concept, stating that one who receives possession of a chattel from another with the intent to acquire for himself or a third person a proprietary interest in the chattel which the other has not the power to transfer is subject to liability for conversion to a third person then entitled ...
Conduct comprising a breach for performance of contractual obligations that have fallen due may be insufficient to be a repudiation. However: Nevertheless, conduct may be a renunciation because it would lead the reasonable observer to conclude that there was an intention not to perform in the future, and
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 is an English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract.
A transfer will be fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. Thus, if a transfer is made with the specific intent to avoid satisfying a specific liability, then actual intent is present. However, when a debtor prefers to pay one creditor instead of another, that is not a fraudulent transfer. [citation needed]