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).
It is also unclear why the dealer's misrepresentation should have been considered "non-fraudulent" when it seems plain that the dealer deliberately misled the finance company. [citation needed] Arguably, this case should have been considered "fraudulent" as it complied with the 3-part guidelines of Derry v Peek.
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 ...
This may be termed use of improper means. "Commonly included among improper means are actions which are independently actionable, violations of federal or state law or unethical business practices, e.g., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement."
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] The idea of this law was to criminalize not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.
Contact your bank or credit card company if you paid a scammer to report a fraudulent charge. If you sent cash by mail, contact the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and ask them to intercept the ...
Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), commonly known as the Ghostbusters ruling, was a case in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.The court held that a house, which the owner had previously advertised as haunted by ghosts, was legally haunted for the purpose of an action for rescission brought by a subsequent purchaser of the house.
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]