L Estrange Vs Graucob Case Study

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

Essentially, the strikingly similar doctrine permits an inference of access whenever two works are similar to one another, in essence, this negates the possibility of independent creation. As point out in a prior case, such striking similarity can lead one to believe that a work has certainly been copied from another. In this specific case, while it is true that Bouchat failed to bring forward sufficient evidence in relation to the defendant’s access of his drawings, the striking similarity between Bouchat’s works and the shield logo of the Ravens adequately shows copyright infringement. Given the aforementioned, the court additional states that it is of no moment that Bouchat did not prove that Modell (the official of the Ravens) actually saw the drawings. Instead, it was necessary to prove that the former was merely given the opportunity to view them.

In a wider meaning, breach of contract is the failure to comply or be able to perform in whole or part whatever is in the contract without any legal reason or excuse. It is not subject to imprisonment but someone who is proven committed breach of contract would surely be liable for the damages. Breach of Contract can surely affect individuals and even business organizations. Here the four different types of breaches: • Material breach – this is the

If he provided information without concealing some of the potential factors associated with the value of the property, he would have knowingly deceived the sellers. This would translate to fraud, especially because the company associated with the purchase belongs to him and the associated lawyer. Initially, Bob lied to the sellers that he would be looking for a property company to purchase the property. This implies that the sellers did not have any idea that the broker was responsible for purchasing the property, as well as representing his company as a broker. While it is legal for a property broker to represent himself, it is necessary for the other party to have the information that the broker is actually the buyer.

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.

He points out that Finnis fails to explain why there needs to be a general obligation to obey the law. The author refutes that general obligation to obey the law cannot be explained by fairness because there are many innocuous illegal acts which cannot be unfair. Contract and consent to obey the law are often mentioned by advocates of the general obligation to obey. These supporters argue that by living in a society and taking the benefits of a legal system, people implicitly consent to follow the law. However, it must be acknowledged that too few have given consent and such consent is not enough to concede to a whole legal system.

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.

The case of R v Caldwell was concerned with the law of recklessness and what equates to recklessness in certain circumstances. The defendant had appealed to the House of Lords for his conviction of aggravated criminal damage, however this conviction was maintained. Arising from this decision, ‘Caldwell recklessness’ was formed. This stated that a person is reckless where property is destroyed or damage where: the appellant partakes in an act which creates an apparent risk of destruction or damage of property, or when the appellant formulates an act in where they have not given any thought to the consequences of their act and has continued with the act regardless. The decision in R v Caldwell was reached through interpretation of Criminal Offences Act 1971 .

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

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 [2007] HCA (2007) 82 AJLR 345 Floyd LJ offered (at 53, 54 and 55) some test.