Misrepresentation In Uk Case Study

In UK, once misrepresentation has been established, the law had given consideration to the remedies for misrepresentation. Thus, there are two concept remedies namely rescission and damages. For rescission, it was further divided in to two category which is contractual remedy whereby it enables the representee to escape from the contract and set it aside both retrospectively and prospectively. The aim of it is to restore as possible the position of parties before entered into contract. Second type is restitutionary remedy whereby the claimant or victim of contract is entitled to recover the value of enrichment which received under the contract prior to being set aside which is known as claim for indemnity. It also know as ‘rescission of breach’

When decided to rescind, he must notice the representor by certain ways as lay down in Redgrave v Hurd[ (1881) 20 Ch D 1] such as seeking declaration that contract is invalid. However, if he decide to affirm the contract when claimant discovered the truth, he may lost the right to rescind. This is because the aim is to ensure claimant is justly enriched as result of rescission as stated in the case of Halpern v Halpern[ [2007] EWCA Civ 291 ; [2008] qb 195]. However, recession may give a rise to personal restitutionary claim event though contractual damages cannot be claimed due to contract has been set aside and it is shown in Whittington v Seale-Hayne[ Party to contract, which did nit cause the consent to contract or party on whom misrepresentation was made does not render contract voidable.][ (1900) 82 LT 49], where claimants were entitled to an indemnity. Thus, recessions is applicable for all types of misrepresentation subjected to S.2(2) of Misrepresentation Act 1967

However, damages may be claim in tort deceit where misrepresentation was made fraudulently or negligently and there is provision for recovery of it under ss.2(1)[ Damages can be claimed for fraudulent and negligence misrepresentation] and 2(2)[ In Innocent misrepresentation, court have discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission] of MA provided there is no component of double, one may rescind and claim for damages except under s.2(2) of MA. Therefore, in fraudulent misrepresentation, victim can claim for damages in tort deceit in order to protect his reliance interest, so the punitive damages can be recovered.[ Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29 ; [2002] AC 122] For negligence misrepresentation, the maker has committed tort deceit and so damages can be claimed. Since the innocent misrepresentation is not a tort deceit, therefore the only remedy available was rescission and indemnity yet court have discretion to award damages instead of recession based on s.2(1) of