Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate; Pages for logged out editors learn more
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 ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate; Pages for logged out editors learn more
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.
Cremdean sought rescission or damages for misrepresentation. Nash sought to rely on a footnote clause in the invitation to tender document that said although statements (like the planning permission) ‘are believe to be correct their accuracy is not guaranteed’ errors would not annul the sale and pre-contract statements did not form part of ...
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.
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.