Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Once misrepresentation has been proven, it is presumed to be "negligent misrepresentation", the default category. It then falls to the claimant to prove that the defendant's culpability was more serious and that the misrepresentation was fraudulent. Conversely, the defendant may try to show that his misrepresentation was innocent.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division: Full case name: Matthew Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC : Decided: June 6, 2011: Docket nos. 3:11-cv-00348: Citation: 2011 WL 2200599: Court membership; Judge sitting: James G. Carr
Case Farms of Ohio, 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999), is a case involving poor working conditions for migratory workers. It established that a principal / agent relationship existed between Case Farms and America's Tempcorps (ATC) that allowed Case Farms to be liable for its agent's actions.
To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3] If the same result would have occurred without negligence by the attorney, no cause of action will be permitted. "But for" or actual causation can ...
It has in the past included in its mission the goal of preventing "fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace". [6] It does so by "collecting reports from consumers and conducting investigations, suing companies and people that break the law, developing rules to maintain a fair marketplace, and educating consumers and ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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]