31:
713:. However, Lord Mansfield was seeking to propound a doctrine of good faith which would extend through the law of contract, and in that respect his view did not bear fruit. Where, however, in the insurance context it put down firm roots, it came to be seen as a doctrine which went much further than the antithesis of fraud, and, as it came to be developed, “non-disclosure will in a substantial proportion of cases be the result of an innocent mistake."
119:. Carter took out an insurance policy with Boehm against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy. A witness, Captain Tryon, testified that Carter was aware that the fort was built to resist attacks from natives but would be unable to repel European enemies, and he knew the French were likely to attack. The French successfully attacked, but Boehm refused to honour the indemnifier Carter, who promptly sued.
140:
his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risk as if it did not exist. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
152:
either party may be innocently silent, as to grounds open to both, to exercise their judgment upon.... An under-writer can not insist that the policy is void, because the insured did not tell him what he actually knew.... The insured need not mention what the under-writer ought to know; what he takes
193:
was an application of his general principle to the making of a contract of insurance. It was based upon the inequality of information as between the proposer and the underwriter and the character of insurance as a contract upon a "speculation". He equated non-disclosure to fraud. He said at p 1909:
139:
Insurance is a contract based upon speculation. The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only; the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon the confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in
708:
Rix LJ stated, "I am conscious that in Carter v. Boehm itself Lord
Mansfield does seem to have considered that there was a difference between the concealment which the duty of good faith prohibited and mere silence (‘Aliud est celare; aliud tacere…). As a result, non-disclosure in the insurance
161:
There was not a word said to him, of the affairs of India, or the state of the war there, or the condition of Fort
Marlborough. If he thought that omission an objection at the time, he ought not to have signed the policy with a secret reserve in his own mind to make it
144:
Lord
Mansfield went on to hold that the duty was reciprocal and that if an insurer withheld material facts, the example cited being that an insured vessel had already arrived safely, the policyholder could declare the policy void and recover the premium.
212:"But as, by the law of merchants, all dealings must be fair and honest, fraud infects and vitiates every mercantile contract. Therefore, if there is fraud in a representation, it will avoid the policy, as a fraud, but not as a part of the agreement."
153:
upon himself the knowledge of; or what he waives being informed of. The under-writer needs not be told what lessens the risque agreed and understood to be run by the express terms of the policy. He needs not to be told general topics of speculation.
188:
was at the time attempting to introduce into
English commercial law a general principle of good faith, an attempt which was ultimately unsuccessful and only survived for limited classes of transactions, one of which was insurance. His judgment in
198:"The keeping back such circumstances is a fraud, and therefore the policy is void. Although the suppression should happen through mistake, without any fraudulent intention; yet still the underwriter is deceived, and the policy is void."
704:
157:
Lord
Mansfield found in favour of the policyholder on the grounds that the insurer knew or ought to have known that the risk existed as the political situation was public knowledge:
610:
310:
811:
243:
655:
624:
487:
202:
It thus was not actual fraud as known to the common law but a form of mistake of which the other party was not allowed to take advantage. Twelve years later in
177:
326:
594:
530:
726:
768:
430:
236:
173:
796:
272:
786:
480:
456:
229:
442:
568:
542:
361:
709:
context in the early years was referred to as a ‘concealment’, and the doctrine has sometimes been viewed and explained as
791:
349:
806:
684:
473:
389:
433:
417:
403:
339:
116:
801:
556:
208:(1778) 2 Cowp 786 at 788, he emphasised that the avoidance of the contract was as the result of a rule of law:
446:
716:
675:
204:
82:
710:
30:
128:
696:
104:
35:
670:
580:
504:
284:
132:
91:
614:
508:
660:
393:
185:
86:
68:
379:
365:
780:
645:
375:
630:
600:
584:
546:
518:
421:
407:
296:
750:
316:
300:
766:
Stephen
Watterson, ‘Carter v Boehm (1766)’, ch 3 in C Mitchell and P Mitchell,
721:
135:) to the insurer, he was required to disclose all facts material to the risk:
221:
39:
108:
112:
465:
127:
Lord
Mansfield held that Mr Carter, as the proposer owed a duty of
469:
225:
705:
HIH Casualty and
General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
148:
Lord
Mansfield proceeded to qualify the duty of disclosure:
174:
Manifest
Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd
312:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
62:
54:
46:
23:
626:Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd
182:
159:
150:
137:
481:
237:
89:established the duty of utmost good faith or
8:
178:John Hobhouse, Baron Hobhouse of Woodborough
328:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell
488:
474:
466:
244:
230:
222:
29:
20:
611:Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v M&S plc
596:Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman
743:
531:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
727:List of cases involving Lord Mansfield
812:Court of King's Bench (England) cases
769:Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract
431:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
58:(1766) 3 Burr 1905, (1766) 97 ER 1162
7:
273:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co
656:Yam Seng v International Trade Corp
14:
81:(1766) 3 Burr 1905 is a landmark
661:[2013] EWHC 111 (QB)
457:Misrepresentation in English law
443:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
569:Scally v Southern Health Board
362:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
1:
350:Lambert v Co-op Insurance Ltd
685:Implied terms in English law
390:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson
184:As Lord Mustill points out,
797:English good faith case law
615:[2001] EWCA Civ 274
418:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
103:Carter was the Governor of
828:
404:Saamco v York Montague Ltd
340:Misrepresentation Act 1967
117:British East India Company
787:English contract case law
682:
667:
652:
637:
621:
607:
591:
577:
565:
557:Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA
553:
539:
527:
515:
501:
454:
440:
428:
414:
400:
386:
372:
358:
346:
337:
323:
307:
293:
281:
269:
257:
252:Misrepresentation sources
67:
28:
772:(Hart Publishing, 2008).
95:in insurance contracts.
631:[2009] UKPC 10
601:[2000] UKHL 39
585:[1997] UKHL 23
215:
214:
200:
164:
155:
142:
547:[1976] UKHL 1
276:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218
210:
196:
792:Lord Mansfield cases
717:English contract law
543:Liverpool CC v Irwin
83:English contract law
16:English contract law
807:1766 in British law
496:Implied terms cases
711:constructive fraud
264:(1766) 3 Burr 1905
700:(1778) 2 Cowp 729
691:
690:
463:
462:
353:2 Lloyd's Rep 485
129:utmost good faith
74:
73:
819:
802:1766 in case law
753:
748:
697:Da Costa v Jones
627:
597:
490:
483:
476:
467:
329:
313:
288:(1881) 20 Ch D 1
246:
239:
232:
223:
115:), built by the
105:Fort Marlborough
36:Fort Marlborough
33:
21:
827:
826:
822:
821:
820:
818:
817:
816:
777:
776:
775:
762:
757:
756:
749:
745:
740:
735:
692:
687:
678:
671:Bhasin v Hrynew
663:
648:
633:
625:
617:
603:
595:
587:
581:Malik v BCCI SA
573:
561:
549:
535:
523:
522:(1889) 14 PD 64
511:
505:Hutton v Warren
497:
494:
464:
459:
450:
436:
424:
410:
396:
382:
368:
354:
342:
333:
327:
319:
311:
303:
289:
285:Redgrave v Hurd
277:
265:
253:
250:
220:
205:Pawson v Watson
169:
133:uberrimae fidei
125:
101:
92:uberrimae fidei
85:case, in which
42:
17:
12:
11:
5:
825:
823:
815:
814:
809:
804:
799:
794:
789:
779:
778:
774:
773:
763:
761:
758:
755:
754:
742:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
730:
729:
724:
719:
714:
701:
689:
688:
683:
680:
679:
668:
665:
664:
653:
650:
649:
641:Carter v Boehm
638:
635:
634:
622:
619:
618:
608:
605:
604:
592:
589:
588:
578:
575:
574:
566:
563:
562:
554:
551:
550:
540:
537:
536:
528:
525:
524:
516:
513:
512:
502:
499:
498:
495:
493:
492:
485:
478:
470:
461:
460:
455:
452:
451:
441:
438:
437:
429:
426:
425:
415:
412:
411:
401:
398:
397:
387:
384:
383:
373:
370:
369:
359:
356:
355:
347:
344:
343:
338:
335:
334:
324:
321:
320:
308:
305:
304:
294:
291:
290:
282:
279:
278:
270:
267:
266:
261:Carter v Boehm
258:
255:
254:
251:
249:
248:
241:
234:
226:
219:
216:
191:Carter v Boehm
186:Lord Mansfield
168:
165:
124:
121:
100:
97:
87:Lord Mansfield
78:Carter v Boehm
72:
71:
69:Lord Mansfield
65:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
34:
26:
25:
24:Carter v Boehm
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
824:
813:
810:
808:
805:
803:
800:
798:
795:
793:
790:
788:
785:
784:
782:
771:
770:
765:
764:
759:
752:
747:
744:
737:
732:
728:
725:
723:
720:
718:
715:
712:
707:
706:
702:
699:
698:
694:
693:
686:
681:
677:
673:
672:
666:
662:
658:
657:
651:
647:
643:
642:
636:
632:
629:
628:
620:
616:
613:
612:
606:
602:
599:
598:
590:
586:
583:
582:
576:
571:
570:
564:
559:
558:
552:
548:
545:
544:
538:
533:
532:
526:
521:
520:
514:
510:
509:EWHC Exch J61
507:
506:
500:
491:
486:
484:
479:
477:
472:
471:
468:
458:
453:
448:
444:
439:
435:
432:
427:
423:
420:
419:
413:
409:
406:
405:
399:
395:
392:
391:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:East v Maurer
371:
367:
364:
363:
357:
352:
351:
345:
341:
336:
331:
330:
322:
318:
315:
314:
306:
302:
299:
298:
292:
287:
286:
280:
275:
274:
268:
263:
262:
256:
247:
242:
240:
235:
233:
228:
227:
224:
217:
213:
209:
207:
206:
199:
195:
192:
187:
181:
179:
176:
175:
166:
163:
158:
154:
149:
146:
141:
136:
134:
130:
122:
120:
118:
114:
110:
106:
98:
96:
94:
93:
88:
84:
80:
79:
70:
66:
63:Case opinions
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
767:
746:
703:
695:
669:
654:
640:
639:
623:
609:
593:
579:
567:
560:2 All ER 293
555:
541:
529:
519:The Moorcock
517:
503:
447:SI 2008/1277
416:
402:
388:
374:
360:
348:
325:
309:
297:Derry v Peek
295:
283:
271:
260:
259:
211:
203:
201:
197:
190:
183:
172:
170:
167:Significance
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
138:
126:
102:
90:
77:
76:
75:
50:King's Bench
18:
676:2014 SCC 71
394:EWCA Civ 12
781:Categories
733:References
722:Good faith
646:97 ER 1162
434:2005/29/EC
380:EWCA Civ 6
366:EWCA Civ 4
738:Citations
40:Indonesia
572:1 AC 294
332:1 QB 525
218:See also
123:Judgment
109:Bengkulu
55:Citation
760:Sources
674:,
644:(1766)
422:UKHL 62
408:UKHL 10
113:Sumatra
751:UKHL 1
534:AC 701
317:UKHL 4
301:UKHL 1
180:said,
659:
162:void.
107:(now
99:Facts
47:Court
171:In
783::
111:,
38:,
489:e
482:t
475:v
449:)
445:(
245:e
238:t
231:v
131:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
