Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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. Facts [ edit ]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
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]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
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.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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.