Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Lewison LJ held that it was wrong to suggest that a contractual estoppel (where parties are bound to accept something even if they knew it to be untrue) was an answer to a claim under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 3, or that a non-reliance clause was immune from scrutiny (disapproving two High Court cases, Thornbridge [2015] EWHC 3430 (QB) and Sears [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch)).
In England, the common law was codified and amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. (Although short and apparently succinct, the 1967 Act is widely regarded as a confusing and poorly drafted statute which has caused a number of difficulties, especially in relation to the basis of the award of damages. [64]
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.
Misrepresentation, exclusion clause Walker v Boyle [1982] 1 WLR 495 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation , and the possibility to exclude liability for it under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 3.
Misrepresentation, exclusion clause Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation . It explains the test of "reasonable grounds for belief" under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1), and raises the issue of the reasonableness test under s 3.
the nature of the misrepresentation; here it was a £5m land sale, but the misrepresentation would only cost £18k to put right; loss caused were the contract upheld; this is a power to award damages where none were previously recoverable. Because of s 2(3) this is not compensation for the loss, but damages for the misrepresentation as such.
Misrepresentation, exclusion clause Cremdean Properties Ltd v Nash (1977) 244 EG 547 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation and exclusion of liability under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 3.