Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The law of misrepresentation is a sui generis amalgam of the laws of contract, tort and unjust enrichment. Although short and apparently succinct, the 1967 Act is widely regarded as being confusing and poorly drafted. [2]
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.
The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former British colonies, e.g. India.
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.
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.
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.
Misrepresentation, exclusion clause Cremdean Properties Ltd v Nash (1977) 244 EG 547 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation and exclusion of liability under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 3.
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.