Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prior to the Act, the common law position was that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in respect of each of ...
Lewison LJ held that it was wrong to suggest that a contractual estoppel (where parties are bound to accept something even if they knew it to be untrue) was an answer to a claim under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 3, or that a non-reliance clause was immune from scrutiny (disapproving two High Court cases, Thornbridge [2015] EWHC 3430 (QB) and Sears [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch)).
Prior to the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in ...
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.
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 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.
Mr Mardon was buying a petrol station franchised by Esso Petroleum Co Ltd. Esso told him they had estimated that the throughput of a petrol station in Eastbank Street, Southport, would be 200,000 gallons a year; however, the local council had made a decision regarding planning permission which meant that there would be no direct access from the main street and therefore fewer customers.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more