Part 2- Actionable Misrepresentation
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding actionable misrepresentation:
Bisset v Wilkinson: In general, for a misrepresentation to be actionable it must be a false statement of past or existing fact which is material and induces the contract.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice: A statement of intention or a statement of opinion (i.e., a statement of what a person is thinking) can be considered a statement of fact, and it if is false it can amount to a misrepresentation.
Redgrave v Hurd: In order for the misrepresentation to be actionable, it must induce the party to enter into the contract. The misrepresentation does not need to be the only reason why the innocent party entered the contract (Edginton).
Spice Girlds Ltd v Aprilia World Service: Conduct can be treated as implicitly making a statement that if untrue may be a misrepresentation.
Dimmock v Hallet: A statement which is literally true may be treated as a misrepresentation if relevant information to the statement is not disclosed (e.g., the literal statement will be no longer true by the time the contract is executed or shortly afterwards).
Lambert V Co-operative Insurance Society: There are certain contracts (e.g., insurance) that require uberrimae fidei (the utmost good faith). In such contacts silence (i.e., failure to disclose relevant information even if not asked for) may amount to a misrepresentation.
Bisset v Wilkinson: In general, for a misrepresentation to be actionable it must be a false statement of past or existing fact which is material and induces the contract.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice: A statement of intention or a statement of opinion (i.e., a statement of what a person is thinking) can be considered a statement of fact, and it if is false it can amount to a misrepresentation.
Redgrave v Hurd: In order for the misrepresentation to be actionable, it must induce the party to enter into the contract. The misrepresentation does not need to be the only reason why the innocent party entered the contract (Edginton).
Spice Girlds Ltd v Aprilia World Service: Conduct can be treated as implicitly making a statement that if untrue may be a misrepresentation.
Dimmock v Hallet: A statement which is literally true may be treated as a misrepresentation if relevant information to the statement is not disclosed (e.g., the literal statement will be no longer true by the time the contract is executed or shortly afterwards).
Lambert V Co-operative Insurance Society: There are certain contracts (e.g., insurance) that require uberrimae fidei (the utmost good faith). In such contacts silence (i.e., failure to disclose relevant information even if not asked for) may amount to a misrepresentation.