28:
175:. Buckleton called up a manager at Heilbut to inquire about the shares. In response to the questions, the manager confirmed that they were "bringing out a rubber company". Based on this statement, Buckleton purchased a large number of shares. The company turned out to have far fewer rubber trees than expected. The shares performed very poorly. Buckleton sued for breach of
214:
made in answer to an inquiry for information. There is nothing which can by any possibility be taken as evidence of an intention on the part of either or both of the parties that there should be a contractual liability in respect of the accuracy of the statement. It is a representation as to a specific thing and nothing more.
213:
It is, my Lords, of the greatest importance, in my opinion, that this House should maintain in its full integrity the principle that a person is not liable in damages for an innocent misrepresentation, no matter in what way or under what form the attack is made. In the present case the statement was
223:
Although
Heilbut, Symons & Co would today be counted as having made at least a negligent misrepresentation, the case still has relevance for the general principle that representations become part of the contract if (as a very general principle) this is "intended". In
198:
identified two ways that the action could be successful. First, if the plaintiff could show fraudulent misrepresentation "or what is equivalent thereto, must be made recklessly, not caring whether it be true or not." Second, if there was intent
230:
the Court of Appeal further clarified that the balance of information between a buyer and seller is relevant to determine what was actually intended, giving preference for the intentions of non-commercial parties who rely on others.
209:, that would bind Heilbut to their representation. However, Lord Moulton stated that such collateral contracts would be rare, and on the facts none was found. Lord Moulton said,
171:), Heilbut, Symons & Co were merchants who were underwriting shares of what they claimed was a rubber business, called the Filisola Rubber and Produce Estates, Limited in
151:
for negligent misrepresentation were introduced in
English law, and, thus, it would today be regarded as wrongly decided under the tort of negligent misrepresentation.
186:. Nevertheless, at trial it was found that there was a warranty in the statement regarding the rubber company. The claimant, Buckleton, did not succeed at trial.
315:
201:
325:
250:
310:
320:
27:
226:
305:
194:
The House of Lords held that no damages could be payable because it was not a fraudulent misrepresentation.
143:
245:
130:
206:
168:
138:
111:
89:
240:
134:
38:
299:
160:
93:
269:
195:
97:
74:
126:
182:
At trial the Court found that
Heilbut made misrepresentation but was not done
137:
on misrepresentation and contractual terms. It held that a non-fraudulent
176:
148:
172:
164:
183:
141:
gave no right to damages. This was decided decades before
103:
85:
80:
69:
54:
44:
34:
20:
211:
205:) to be held to a promise then there may be a
8:
26:
17:
270:"Legal definition of animus contrahendi"
261:
49:Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
7:
123:Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
21:Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
316:English misrepresentation case law
14:
251:Misrepresentation in English law
326:United Kingdom company case law
167:trade 1910 (at the end of the
1:
114:, contract terms, intention
58:November 11, 1912
342:
227:Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams
108:
25:
216:
144:Hedley Byrne v Heller
75:[1912] UKHL 2
311:House of Lords cases
272:. legal-glossary.com
246:English contract law
131:English contract law
321:1912 in British law
207:collateral contract
133:case, given by the
202:animus contrahendi
169:Amazon rubber boom
139:misrepresentation
119:
118:
112:misrepresentation
333:
306:1912 in case law
291:
288:
282:
281:
279:
277:
266:
90:Viscount Haldane
81:Court membership
65:
63:
30:
18:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
332:
331:
330:
296:
295:
294:
289:
285:
275:
273:
268:
267:
263:
259:
237:
221:
192:
157:
115:
61:
59:
12:
11:
5:
339:
337:
329:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
298:
297:
293:
292:
283:
260:
258:
255:
254:
253:
248:
243:
241:UK company law
236:
233:
220:
217:
191:
188:
156:
153:
135:House of Lords
117:
116:
109:
106:
105:
101:
100:
87:
86:Judges sitting
83:
82:
78:
77:
71:
67:
66:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
39:House of Lords
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
338:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
303:
301:
287:
284:
271:
265:
262:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
238:
234:
232:
229:
228:
218:
215:
210:
208:
204:
203:
197:
189:
187:
185:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:economic boom
154:
152:
150:
146:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
124:
113:
107:
102:
99:
95:
94:Lord Atkinson
91:
88:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
286:
274:. Retrieved
264:
225:
222:
219:Significance
212:
200:
196:Lord Moulton
193:
184:fraudulently
181:
158:
142:
122:
121:
120:
98:Lord Moulton
48:
15:
300:Categories
290:EWCA Civ 5
159:During an
62:1912-11-11
235:See also
190:Judgment
177:warranty
147:, where
110:Shares,
104:Keywords
70:Citation
276:18 June
163:in the
149:damages
73:AC 30,
60: (
55:Decided
173:Mexico
165:rubber
129:is an
127:UKHL 2
257:Notes
155:Facts
35:Court
278:2013
302::
179:.
96:,
92:,
280:.
199:(
64:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
