Misrepresentation-Contract Law - Essay Example

1 Introduction In With v. O’Flannagan [1936] the court held that silence did not amount to misrepresentation. Further in Keates v. Cadogan it was decided that the seller was not bound to negotiate in good faith, that the disclosure of facts not known to the buyer could be withheld. However, once the broken by the prospective seller, the prospect of liability commences. If the buyer elects to disclose information not known to the buyer, the good or property which he seeks to pass to the buyer must adhere to the stipulations of the Sale of Goods Act 1974. In Moore v. Landaeur [1921], we find adherence to S 13 of the SOGA, concerning tins of fruit and Beale v. Taylor [1967], involving a car that turned out to be a collection of soldered vehicles. Also in S14 of the SOGA the goods are to be of satisfactory quality. Examples are Grant v. Australian knitting mills [1936], itchy underpants and Wilson v. Rickett, Cockerall & Co. [1954], exploding coal. S14 deals with instances where goods are useable but have some form or defect. Examples include Rogers v. Parish and Another v. Parish (Scarborough) LTD. And Another [1987], where the court of Appeal held that a series of defects in a Range Rover made it unmerchantable (not satisfactory quality) even though it was fit to drive. S14 (2a) states: goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the circumstances. When we view Baldry v. Marshall [1925], the court held; when a purchaser relies on the skill and judgment of the seller and the seller is acting in the course of his 2 business, then, for the purposes of S 14 (3), goods must be suitable for the purpose made known to the seller if a breach is to be avoided. Even if the goods are of merchantable quality, other implied terms must be satisfied. (Baldry) Also we might view the Trade Description Act of 1968. A trade Description is only false when it is false to a material degree, a trade description offence occurs when and if a statement is made in the course of …service, accommodation or facilities. The test in this instance is satisfied by three of the four existing measures used in assessing occurrence; (1) There must be a trade description; (2) The offender must be acting in the course of business or trade and third; statement must be false or reckless. Examples include Wickers Motors (Gloucester) LTD v. Hall [1952] and Wings Limited v. Ellis (1985]. The parties are Dario the claimant =X, and Party Animals the Defendant =Y. I will be advising X. 3 Misrepresentation Misrepresentation is an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct or sometimes by non disclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving or causing another to rely on it detrimentally. Examples in law are Solle v. Butcher [1950] where the court held; Equity can be called upon if the mistake is not fundamental, therefore void, equity can step in and make it void able. Also in Dimmock v. Hallett [1866] the seller made statements concerning the property which were not merely commentary or advertising hype. Also in Smith v. Land and House Property the court held; “a statement of opinion can be regarded as a statement of fact in certain situations. One such situation will be where the maker of the statement has greater knowledge and skill and appears by implication, to be able to support that statement. Also in Schawel v. Reade [1913] 46 ILT 281, the court found that; “the strength of the inducement can be important, the more emphasis put on representation, the more likely it will be the courts will regard this as a term. Also see Rutledge v. McKay [1861] WLR 615. As well, the courts will often attempt to find a collateral contract by interpreting the representation as a promise accompanied by some sort of consideration (see Hellbut, Symons & Co. v. Buckleton [1913] AC 30 HL) “the collateral contract will have the affect of adding representation as a term of the contract. If representation is found to be a term then the normal remedies for breach of contract will apply”(Hellbut) In Arcos LTD v. Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470, the court held;”the rule is strict in relation to performance of a contract-all obligations must be performed as agreed, if the goods do not comply with the description then the contract is breached.” Further the 4 ruling in Wilson v. Rickett goes on to point out S 14 of the SOGA 1979: “that it will apply only when the purchaser has relied upon the vendors skill and expertise. It goes on to point out under the Act, the assumption that a purchaser, when purchasing goods under a trade name, does not rely upon on the vendors expertise, no longer exist”(Wilson) (1) It is implied by Y is his fax to X, that even though the proposed location was not on high street, it would leave any reasonable person to believe it was a location on a positive rise soon to be on par with the likes of high street. This is a Fraudulent Misrepresentation. There was obviously inducement in this representation, because as every student of business 101 is keenly aware, the key to a business success is more often than not in its location, location, location. (2) Same as above (3) Same as above (4) Y was a typical old fox as he exhibited he was a silver tongued devil in his presentation of this alleged amenity. It could hardly be disputed except that after Y described the location of the bar and other alleged amenities of the bar that X could reasonably assume the view would be picturesque, and a feature which would ultimately bring many of his customers to return again and again, along with word of mouth praise of the “view unlike any other in London” This I have classified as a Negligent misstatement. I would advise X that he would seek remedial relief though the courts, against the defendant Y on the basis of fraudulent Misrepresentation, and negligent misstatement because there has been a definite breach in the contract which he consummated with Y. 5 These breaches are obviated by Arcos V. Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470; “ the rule is strict in relation to contract—all obligations must be performed as agreed, if the goods do not comply with description then the contract is breached. Also be Wilson V. Rickett and S14 of the SOGA 1979.Additionally I would advise him to seek damages for the return of his money. An example of cases of this type winning favor with the court is found in Goss v. Chilcott Holdings Company LTD., where the court held; “when one is considering the law of failure of consideration and of the quasi-contractural right to recover money on that ground, it is generally speaking not to the promise which is referred to as the consideration, but to the performance of that promise…there are endless examples which show that money can be recovered for a complete failure of consideration in cases where the promise was given but could not be fulfilled. Read More