Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading [1] statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. [2] [3] The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, [1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, [2] or (ii) does not believe in the statement, [3] or (iii) is reckless as to ...
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988, [1] which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
She sued the seller and the real estate agent for fraud and misrepresentation, saying that they made a "deliberate choice not to disclose the home's recent past," according to a court document.
The tort of deceit is a type of legal injury that occurs when a person intentionally and knowingly deceives another person into an action that damages them. Specifically, deceit requires that the tortfeasor makes a factual representation, knowing that it is false, or reckless or indifferent about its veracity,
Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact.
The lawsuit includes claims for conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair business practices. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
The position that the courts have reached is that when a third party (i.e. the bank) is put on inquiry as to potential undue influence, they must communicate to the person who may have been unduly influenced (i.e. the wife) that they require a solicitor acting for the wife (who may also act for the bank) to confirm to the bank in writing that ...