Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Unfair business practices (also Unfair Commercial Practices) describes a set of practices by businesses which are considered unfair, and which may be unlawful.It includes practices which are covered by other areas of law, such as fraud, misrepresentation, and oppressive or unconscionable contract terms.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate.
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 ...
A prominent example in the UK is the wrongful conviction of Sally Clark for killing her two sons who appeared to have died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). In his expert testimony, now discredited Professor Sir Roy Meadow claimed that due to the rarity of SIDS, the probability of Clark being innocent was 1 in 73 million.
Through a recent development in common law, beginning with Hedley Byrne v Heller [38] in 1964, and further through the Misrepresentations Act 1967, a victim of the tort [39] of misrepresentation will be compensated for purely economic loss due to the misconception of the terms of the contract.
It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation. The court controversially decided that under the Act, the appropriate measure of damages was the same as that for common law fraud, or damages for all losses flowing from a misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable.
The representation may be oral or written. The misrepresentation has to be affirmative. A failure to disclose a fact does not fit this misrepresentation in common law, unless there is a fiduciary duty between the thief and victim. Moreover, opinion and puffing are not considered misrepresentation as they color the facts but do not misrepresent ...