Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fraudulent misrepresentation is defined in the 3-part test in Donohoe v Donohoe , ... Rescission requires the parties to be restored to their former positions; so if ...
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 ...
Rescission at common law is only available for fraudulent misrepresentations and duress. Rescission renders the contract void ab initio, and courts will only grant rescission under common law if the parties can be restored to their original positions prior to the formation of the contract ("restitutio in integrum"). [3]
Check-kiting adds the element of fraudulent misrepresentation of writing bad checks to increase a financial position at more than one bank or fraudulently depositing those funds into another account.
She sued the seller and the real estate agent for fraud and misrepresentation, saying that they made a "deliberate choice not to disclose the home's recent past," according to a court document.
Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact.
The lawsuit includes claims for conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair business practices. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
So where there is a sudden downturn in the property market, a person guilty of deceitful misrepresentation is liable for all the claimant's losses, even if they have been increased by such an unanticipated event. [7] This is subject to a duty to mitigate the potential losses. [8] Contributory negligence is no defence in an action for deceit. [9]