Part 3 - Types of Misrepresentation
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding the types of misrepresentation:
Derry v Peek: Fraudulent misrepresentation is a false statement that is made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly as to whether it be true of false. Fraudulent misrepresentation, in addition to being a ground on which a contract may be rescinded, constitutes the tort of deceit. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Hedley Byrne v Heller: Negligent misrepresentation at common law is available where the maker of the statement and the party relying on it are in a `special relationship' requiring a `duty of care' and the maker of the statement acts in breach of this duty. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The representation may be made by a third party who is not a party to the contract.
Howard Marine v Odgen: Statutory misrepresentation is available where the maker of the statement has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true (S.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1976). The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently by proving ``that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true". The party making the misrepresentation bears a heavy burden of proof under s.2(1). The burden of proof for the claimant is that a misrepresentation was made and that it induced the contract.
Whittington v Seale-Hayne: Representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent is innocent misrepresentation.
Derry v Peek: Fraudulent misrepresentation is a false statement that is made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly as to whether it be true of false. Fraudulent misrepresentation, in addition to being a ground on which a contract may be rescinded, constitutes the tort of deceit. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Hedley Byrne v Heller: Negligent misrepresentation at common law is available where the maker of the statement and the party relying on it are in a `special relationship' requiring a `duty of care' and the maker of the statement acts in breach of this duty. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The representation may be made by a third party who is not a party to the contract.
Howard Marine v Odgen: Statutory misrepresentation is available where the maker of the statement has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true (S.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1976). The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently by proving ``that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true". The party making the misrepresentation bears a heavy burden of proof under s.2(1). The burden of proof for the claimant is that a misrepresentation was made and that it induced the contract.
Whittington v Seale-Hayne: Representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent is innocent misrepresentation.