Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 (c. 7) is a United Kingdom act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which amended the common law ... Damages for misrepresentation. (1 ...
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.
Under s. 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the court has the discretion to award damages instead of rescission, "if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to ...
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.
The breaches of them give Mr. Jarvis a right to damages. It is not necessary to decide whether they were representations or warranties: because since the Misrepresentation Act 1967, there is a remedy in damages for misrepresentation as well as for breach of warranty. The one question in the case is: What is the amount of damages?
The Judge found the lease was entered based on the landlord's misrepresentation, and clause 5.8 attempted to exclude liability for misrepresentation, but was unreasonable under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 3 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 section 11. Their liability was not limited to the extent of the trust's assets.
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.
Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird [2009] EWHC 1253 QB is an English contract law and UK labour law case concerning the right to seek damages for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. It attracted considerable media attention due to the sums claimed in compensation and the politically charged facts of the case.