Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Negligent misstatement is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a tort based upon the 1964 obiter dicta in Hedley Byrne v Heller [72] where the House of Lords found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.
He said, [1] It is true that if he had not supposed he would have a charge he would not have taken the debentures; but if he also relied on the misstatement in the prospectus, his loss nonetheless resulted from that misstatement. It is not necessary to show that the misstatement was the sole cause of his acting as he did.
Mr Mardon was buying a petrol station franchised by Esso Petroleum Co Ltd. Esso told him they had estimated that the throughput of a petrol station in Eastbank Street, Southport, would be 200,000 gallons a year; however, the local council had made a decision regarding planning permission which meant that there would be no direct access from the main street and therefore fewer customers.
The Hynix court explains the difference between a mistake of law "where the facts are known, but the legal consequences are not, or are believed to be different than they really are" (Century Importers, Inc. v. United States, 205 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000)), and a mistake of fact, "where either (1) the facts exist, but are unknown, or (2 ...
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States 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.
The leading case in English law is Derry v.Peek, [2] which was decided before the development of the law on negligent misstatement. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v.Heller & Partners Ltd it was decided that people who make statements which they ought to have known were untrue because they were negligent, can in some circumstances, to restricted groups of claimants be liable to make compensation for ...
A material fact is a fact that a reasonable person would recognize as relevant to a decision to be made, as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial, or unimportant detail. In other words, it is a fact, the suppression of which would reasonably result in a different decision. [1] [2]