Innocent misrepresentation is a misrepresentation made by someone where a person got reasonable grounds for making someone to believe that his false statement is right.According to Hedley Barney all misrepresenatation which are not considered to be fraudulent will be considered as innocent misrepresentation. When someone had commited innocent misrepresentation,certain remedies are available for them. Commonly rescission is used for all the type of misrepresentation including for innocent misrepresentation.Rescission means the court willl go back to the original act,where they will act as in the contract had never exist before. As for in rescision, court will normally refer to section 2 (2) Misrepresentation Act 1967 for rescission. Rescission
The requirements for an actionable misrepresentation are that; the misrepresentation must be a statement of existing fact or past events, and not a statement of opinion; it must induce a person to enter into the contract; it must be material in that it relates to a matter which would influence a reasonable person’s decision whether to enter into the contract. (Misrepresentation Act, Cap 390) There are three types of misrepresentation: The first is innocent misrepresentation - when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true. The second is negligent misrepresentation - a representation made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. The third is fraudulent misrepresentation - where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. The affect of a finding of misrepresentation, regardless of whether it is innocent, negligent or fraudulent, is that the contract is voidable, and the innocent party may rescind the contract, which generally means terminating the contract and returning the parties to the position they were before the
The main remedy of breach of contract is the award of damages which will be use when an innocent party faces a contract being breached. The purpose of damages is for the part of the claimant. The damages are the monetary sum set by the court for reimbursement to the claimant. Therefore the innocent party must show that they have suffered actual loss, if this can’t be proved then they will only be entitled to nominal damages. To award the claimant for damages, the court has to think about two things: • Remoteness –the consequence of the breach • Measure of Damages – the damages are evaluated in monetary
The Court of Appeal held that in signing the order form the claimant had effectively signed her rights away. The claimant was bounded by the terms and conditions of the form. The claimant’s claim was therefore unsuccessful. 2.5 The Reasonable Man A reasonable person would not fall below the standards of any ordinary reasonable person in any situation. If falled below standards of reasonableness, the defendant will be known as negligent.
Introduction Undue influence is a vital concept under the contract law. It exists in situations where one party to a contract entered into an agreement with the other party due to the result of pressure exerted to him by that other party. The innocent party who has been subjected to the pressure may then seek an action to set aside the said contract. Undue influence can be said to be developed from the doctrine of duress under the English Common Law. Hence, it can be said that undue influence has certain similarities to the doctrine of duress under the English Common Law, such as rendering a contract to become voidable, except a few distinctive features.
Reynolds v Clarke (1726)2 Ld Raym 1399, Fortescue ruled that the difference would surmount to whether the consequence was immediate or occurred later, for which an action would otherwise not be brought. The rigidness in the distinction between trespass and case proved a problem. The solution lay in allowing the plaintiff to ‘waive’ the trespass and sue instead in case.in Williams v. Holland (1833)2 LJCP (NS) 190, the court of common pleas decided that this would be allowed if the plaintiff’s injury was occasioned by the ‘carelessness and negligence’ of the defendant, regardless of whether or not the act was immediate, so long as the act was unwillful. Thus one could bring an act whether the defendant produced immediate or consequential damage.
Arden LJ argued (at 68) that the Claimant did not plan to stop performing the contract. Underhill LJ (at 34) agreed that the Claimant intended to fulfill his obligations but inconsistently and that substantially inconsistent fulfillment of the contract constitutes a repudiation. Floyd LJ (at 52 and 53) agreed that substantially inconsistent performance “…may amount to a renunciation…”. At the same time, Lord Justice argued that not all such breaches entitled the other party to terminate the contract; the nature of the contract and the consequences of the breach should be evaluated. In reason to evaluate it and with reference to Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd  HCA (2007) 82 AJLR 345 Floyd LJ offered (at 53, 54 and 55) some test.
Arguably, Benedict had a free choice whether to accept the risk or not. However, the defence of ‘volenti’ would be hard to prove because debatably Benedict was unaware of the risk and so, could not have consented to it as Jenifer’s statement created a ‘false sense of safety’. There is also the defence of contributory negligence which will reduce compensation payable. This arises where the claimant causes or contributes to their own harm by failing to take reasonable care for their own safety. This is assessed by asking what the reasonable person in the circumstances of the claimant would have done to avoid injury.
Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property. ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS The definition involves three constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former’s conduct within the scope
It believed party use it best judgment before entering into the contract. However it was settled in case of Edgington V Fitzmaurice 1885 it was held that the right of rescind of contract cannot denied where there are intention of influence the decision is involved. The parties into the contract have the right to rescind the contract where the falsification of information provided to induce the contract (Hesselink, 2015). The right under the Misrepresentation Act is could not denied that the party have reasonable opportunity to verify the content of the statement. Profit in any business is the material consideration (Grundmann, 2013).
Their concern was mainly on the jury being questioned loss of use damages, whether it was lawful for the trial court to allow and ignore their motion. They didn’t dispute the amount that was paid to Robert’s company but only them not be obligated to pay for any loss of use damages that Brueland insurance didn’t cover. J&D also appealed their case, commenting that it shouldn’t matter if the damages to property are partially or totally destroyed that loss of use stills
In this two-step approach the legal basis of the claim must first be ascertained by the court, followed by consideration of the injuries received by the plaintiff. In relation to the case above, the legal basis of the claim is that there was a breach of contract, which resulted in financial losses to the plaintiffs. The court held this claim to be valid breach of contract claim. The second part of the two-step approach, looked at the types of injuries received. In this case, savings and financial injury resulting in bankruptcy was the result of the defendant’s breach of contract by not providing permeant financing.
to show: (A) there was a purported fiduciary relationship; or (B) the relationship was one of subjugation or “dominion and influence.” Each of these deficiencies alone necessitates a dismissal of Dr. Stout’s constructive fraud cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has explained the elements necessary to maintain a constructive fraud cause of action: A constructive fraud complaint must allege facts and circumstances (1) which created the relation of trust and confidence, and (2) led up to and surrounded the consummation of the transaction in which defendant is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of trust to the hurt of plaintiff. Further, an essential element of constructive fraud is that defendants sought to benefit themselves in the transaction. Put simply, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty, and (2) a breach of that duty.