Misrepresentation - Knowledge (XXG)

2379:, Krakowski agreed to enter into a contract to buy a shop premises from Eurolynx as long as a 'strong tenant' had been organised. The contract proceeded on the grounds that such a tenant had been arranged. Unbeknown to Krakowski, Eurolynx had entered into an additional agreement with the tenant to provide funds for the first three months rent to ensure the contract went ahead. When the tenant defaulted on the rent and subsequently vacated the premises, Krakowski found out about the additional agreement and rescinded the contract with Eurolynx. It was held that Eurolynx's failure to disclose all material facts about the 'strong tenant' was enough to constitute a misrepresentation and the contract could be rescinded on these grounds. 1159:

unless the representer updates the other party. If the statement is true at the time, but becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor must update the original statement. Actionable misrepresentations must be misstatements of fact or law: misstatements of opinion or intention are not deemed statements of fact; but if one party appears to have specialist knowledge of the topic, his "opinions" may be considered actionable misstatements of fact. For example, false statements made by a seller regarding the quality or nature of the property that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation.

2309:(1821) 3 Swan 400, two brothers had reached an agreement regarding the family estate. The elder brother was under the impression that he was born out of wedlock and thus not their father's true heir. The agreement was reached on this basis. The elder brother subsequently discovered that this was not the case and that the younger brother had knowledge of this during the negotiation of the settlement. The elder brother sued to set aside the agreement and was successful on the grounds that such a contract was one of uberrimae fidei and the required disclosure had not been executed. 2254:(1806) 13 Ves Jr 95, the plaintiff handed over a picture to an agent for sale. The agent knew of the picture's true worth yet bought it for a considerably lower price. The plaintiff subsequently discovered the picture's true worth and sued to rescind the contract. It was held that the defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and accordingly assumed an obligation to disclose all material facts. Accordingly, the contract could be rescinded. 51: 1598:; and the claimant will be estopped from rescinding. The time limit for taking such steps varies depending on the type of misrepresentation. In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the time limit runs until when the misrepresentation ought to have been discovered, whereas in innocent misrepresentation, the right to rescission may lapse even before the represent can reasonably be expected to know about it. 1312: 1431:, a statement became untrue and fraudulently misrepresented when a named member of staff, put forward by the developer Fitzroy Robinson as leader of the team who would work on a development project for Mentmore Towers, resigned from the company. The developer did not notify the client before contracts were signed, which led the court to accept Mentmore Towers' 1252:, the seller, Small, made false claims about the capabilities of his mines and steelworks. The buyer, Attwood, said he would verify the claims before he bought, and he employed agents who declared that Small's claims were true. The House of Lords held that Attwood could not rescind the contract, as he did not rely on Small but instead relied on his agents. 1511:...if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable'. 1349:

innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in respect of each of the three categories. The point of the three categories is that the law recognises that the defendant may have been blameworthy to a greater or lesser extent; and the relative degrees of blameworthiness lead to differing remedies for the claimant.

1267:

Redgrave, an elderly solicitor told Hurd, a potential buyer, that the practice earned £300 pa. Redgrave said Hurd could inspect the accounts to check the claim, but Hurd did not do so. Later, having signed a contract to join Redgrave as a partner, Hurd discovered the practice generated only £200 pa,

3139:

Mr Long bought from Mr Lloyd a lorry advertised as being in ‘exceptional condition,’ said to do 40 mph and 11 miles to the gallon. When it broke down after two days and was doing 5 miles to the gallon, Mr Long complained. Mr Lloyd said he would repair it for half the price of a reconstructed dynamo.

2969:

The victim of an innocent misrepresentation who wishes to affirm the contract has no legal right to damages. Of course, the misled party may seek to negotiate a compensation payment, but the other party need not comply; and if the misled party litigates to seek "damages in lieu", but the court holds

1581:. Rescission can be effected either by informing the representor or by requesting an order from the court. Rescission is an equitable remedy which is not always available. Rescission requires the parties to be restored to their former positions; so if this is not possible, rescission is unavailable. 1352:

Once misrepresentation has been proven, it is presumed to be "negligent misrepresentation", the default category. It then falls to the claimant to prove that the defendant's culpability was more serious and that the misrepresentation was fraudulent. Conversely, the defendant may try to show that his

1234:

It is not necessary for the representation to have been be received directly; it is sufficient that the representation was made to another party with the intention that it would become known to a subsequent party and ultimately acted upon by them. However, it IS essential that the untruth originates

1214:

For many years, statements of law were deemed incapable of amounting to misrepresentations because the law is "equally accessible by both parties" and is "...as much the business of the plaintiff as of to know what the law .". This view has changed, and it is now accepted that statements of law may

1672:

was read literally to mean "liable as in fraudulent misrepresentation". So, under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, damages for negligent misrepresentation are calculated as if the defendant had been fraudulent, even if he has been merely careless. Although this was almost certainly not the intention

3249:

Tortious liability has a wider scope than usual contractual liability, as it allows the claimant to claim for loss even if it is not reasonably foreseeable, which is not possible with a claim for breach of contract due to the decision in Hadley v Baxendale. Inclusion of the representation into the

3144:

held the contract had been affirmed. It was too late to escape for misrepresentation. A more lenient approach may now exist. As Slade LJ pointed out in Peyman v Lanjani, actual knowledge of the right to choose to affirm a contract or rescind is essential before one can be said to have "affirmed" a

2457:

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council 2 AC 349, abolished a bar on mistake of law bar and Pankhania v Hackney LBC EWHC 2441 (Ch) held the same went for misrepresentation under Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1) where agents of a land seller incorrectly said that people running a car park on

1158:

To amount to a misrepresentation, the statement must be untrue or seriously misleading. A statement which is "technically true" but which gives a misleading impression is deemed an "untrue statement". If a misstatement is made and later the representor finds that it is false, it becomes fraudulent

779:

The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former

866:

There is no general duty of disclosure in English contract law, and one is normally not obliged to say anything. Ordinary contracts do not require "good faith" as such, and mere compliance with the law is sufficient. However in particular relationships silence may form the basis of an actionable

1324:

Within trade and commerce, the law regarding misrepresentation is dealt with by the Australian Consumer Law, under Section 18 and 29 of this code, the ACL calls contractual misrepresentations as "misleading and deceptive conduct" and imposes a prohibition. The ACL provides for remedies, such as

900:

is a contract of 'utmost good faith', and include contracts of insurance, business partnerships, and family agreements. When applying for insurance, the proposer must disclose all material facts for the insurer properly to assess the risk. In the UK, the duty of disclosure in insurance has been

2433:

Ch. 575, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase O'Flanagan's medical practice. During negotiations it was said that the practice produced an income of £2000 per year. Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value. After the

1934:

Ms Curtis took a wedding dress with beads and sequins to the cleaners. They gave her a contract to sign and she asked the assistant what it was. The assistant said it merely covered risk to the beads, but in fact the contract exempted all liability. The dress was stained but the exclusion was

2434:

contract had been entered into, the true nature of the practice was discovered and the plaintiff took action in misrepresentation. In his decision, Lord Wright said, "...a representation made as a matter of inducement to enter into a contract is to be treated as a continuing representation.".

1653:

Given the relative lack of blameworthiness of a non-fraudulent defendant (who is at worst merely careless, and at best may honestly "believe on reasonable grounds" that he told the truth) for many years lawyers presumed that for these two categories, damages would be on a contract/tort basis

1348:

Prior to the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly"

2418:

VR 57, an agent had advertised some cattle as being "well-suited for breeding purposes". Later on, it was discovered that the stock had been exposed to a contagious disease which affected the reproductive system. It was held that the agent had a duty to take remedial action and correct the

2942:

A defendant honestly believing his statement to be true is not fraudulent: "Honesty of belief in the truth of a warranty is no defence to a breach of warranty, whereas it is a complete defence to a charge of false representation. If a statement is an honest expression of opinion, honestly

1577:. The misled party may either (i) rescind, or (ii) affirm and continue to be bound. If the claimant chooses to rescind, the contract will still be deemed to have been valid up to the time it was avoided, so any transactions with a third party remains valid, and the third party will retain 1456:: The misled party may rescind but has no entitlement to damages under s.2(1). However, the court may "declare the contract subsisting" and award damages in lieu of rescission. (By contrast, the victim of a breach of warranty in contract may claim damages for loss, but may not repudiate.) 3277:

Hooley argues that fraud and negligence are qualitatively different and should be treated differently in order to reflect fraud's greater moral culpability. He says the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1) establishes only liability in damages but not their quantum, so

1197:

Statements of intention do not constitute misrepresentations should they fail to come to fruition, since the time the statements were made they can not be deemed either true or false. However, an action can be brought if the intention never actually existed, as in

2621:(1885) 29 Ch. D. 459, company directors seeking a loan "intended to develop the business" always intended to use the cash to repay debts. The state of mind is an existing fact, therefore, a false presentation of an existing fact, so that the contract was voidable. 1667:

of s.2 (which, to paraphrase, provides that where a person has been misled by a negligent misrepresentation then, if the misrepresentor would be liable to damages had the representation been made fraudulently, the defendant "shall be so liable"). The phrase

1231:, where the plaintiff sued the directors of a company for indemnity. The action failed because it was found that the plaintiff was not a representee (an intended party to the representation) and accordingly misrepresentation could not be a protection. 1337:. (Although short and apparently succinct, the 1967 Act is widely regarded as a confusing and poorly drafted statute which has caused a number of difficulties, especially in relation to the basis of the award of damages. It was mildly amended by the 1617:, "if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party." 775:

made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).

1601:

Sometimes, third party rights may intervene and render rescission impossible. Say, if A misleads B and contracts to sell a house to him, and B later sells to C, the courts are unlikely to permit rescission as that would unfair impinge upon C.

1296:

a misrepresentation; but, five years having passed, the buyer's right to rescind had lapsed. This suggests that, having relied on a misrepresentation, the misled party has the onus to discover the truth "within a reasonable time". In

828:

also. Although a suit for breach of contract is relatively straightforward, there are advantages in bringing a parallel suit in misrepresentation, because whereas repudiation is available only for breach of condition, rescission is

3295:’). So Caldwell should not have got his car back. Rights in property are passed on delivery and with intent to pass title. This is not dependent on the validity of the contract. In short, he argues for the abstraction principle. 312: 2185: 2267:(1873) 2 LJ (QB) 55, a woman who was appointed to the post of governess failed to reveal that she had previously been married. (The employer favoured single women). It was held that she had made no misrepresentation. 1435:

that failure to disclose this information was a fraudulent misrepresentation. The judge found that they had misrepresented the position in order to avoid the possibility that the client might withdraw from the

1528:, or a combination of both may be available. Tortious liability may also be considered. Several countries, such as Australia have a statutory schema which deals with misrepresentations under consumer law. 1374:

The misled party may rescind and claim damages under s.2(1) for any losses. The court may "declare the contract subsisting" and award damages in lieu of rescission, but s.2(3) prevents the award of double

2352:

rule was applied in a life assurance policy. Despite minor omissions, the assured had made a sufficiently substantial disclosure of material facts that the insurer knew the risk, and the policy was valid

1958:

For the purposes of "offer and acceptance", a representation may serve a further function such as an "offer", "counter-offer", "invitation to treat", "request for information" or "statement of intention"

1888:

B Häcker, ‘Rescission of Contract and Revesting of Title: A Reply to Mr Swadling’ RLR 106, responds to Swadling's argument. She point out flaws in Swadling's (1) historical analysis; and (2) conceptual

2318:

In insurance the insurer agrees to indemnify the assured against losses proximately caused by insured perils, and the insurer is thus entitled to know full details of the risk being transferred to him.

3187: 2172: 317: 2979: 1225:

An action in misrepresentation can only be brought by the misled party, or "representee". This means that only those who were an intended recipient of the representation may sue, as in

3262:, although the rules on mitigation will apply in the latter case. In certain cases though, the courts have awarded damages for loss of profit, basing it on loss of opportunity: see 1275:

held that the contract could be rescinded for misrepresentation, because Redgrave had made a misrepresentation, adding that Hurd was entitled to rely on the £300 statement.

1002: 531: 935: 580: 705: 272: 2240:(1878) 8 Ch. D. 469, 474. Justice Fry commented on the responsibilities of a fiduciary "...they can only contract after the most ample disclosure of everything..." 1258:

confirmed further that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract, for a remedy to be available, so long as it is an influence.

1018: 2277: 1169:

Statements of opinion are usually insufficient to amount to a misrepresentation as it would be unreasonable to treat personal opinions as "facts", as in

690:

3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions

3254:

will leave the remedy for breach in damages as a common law right. The difference is that damages for misrepresentation usually reflect the claimant's

2770: 2899:

Nowhere in the 1967 Act are the words "negligent misrepresentation" to be found; that terminology was established by practising and academic lawyers.

1689: 2953: 1631:"Damages" are monetary compensation for loss. In contract and tort, damages will be awarded if the breach of contract (or breach of duty) causes 2646: 750: 2713: 2587: 1122: 928: 788:

A "representation" is a pre-contractual statement made during negotiations. If a representation has been incorporated into the contract as a

1490:

found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.

3230: 3081: 2236: 1746: 964: 2096: 2209: 1646:

For negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may get damages as of right under s.2(1) and/or damages in lieu of rescission under s.2(2).

2684: 1694:

Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors that can affect the validity of a contract. Other vitiating factors include:

2482: 1148: 921: 336: 300: 1134: 2821:

The case also makes clear that, the circumstances having altered, Redgrave was under a duty to inform the Hurd of the changes.

1945: 1930: 1885:

123, suggests the reasoning on recovery of property should not merge the issues of validity of contract and transfer of title.

1487: 3200: 3156: 3095: 3020: 2843: 2784: 2529: 1594: 1495: 1418: 1338: 1299: 1280: 1053: 329: 2908:

There is no specific relationship between negligent misrepresentation and the tort of negligence and the duty of care under

1446:

is "belief on reasonable grounds up till the time of the contract that the facts represented are true". (s.2(1) of the Act).

2857: 1215:

be treated as akin to statements of fact. As stated by Lord Denning "...the distinction between law and fact is illusory".

1041: 2375: 847:

For a misrepresentation to occur, especially a negligent misrepresentation, the following elements need to be satisfied.

2886: 2674:(Vic, Australia). While dealing with a mistake of law, similar reasoning should apply to a misrepresentation of law. 1998: 1680:

S.2 does not specify how "damages in lieu" should be determined, and interpretation of the statute is up to the courts.

1659: 1081: 595: 185: 2555: 2157:"Inherent limitations": equitable remedies are only ever discretionary; and one must "come to equity with clean hands". 1584:

A misled party who, knowing of the misrepresentation, fails to take steps to avoid the contract will be deemed to have

1125: 3292: 3141: 3049: 1109: 80: 2333:(1880) 5 App Cas 925 when he noted "...the concealment of a material circumstance known to you...avoids the policy." 2068: 1985: 1606: 1334: 1095: 1031: 836: 743: 694: 615: 341: 2671: 2291: 1614: 1561: 1521: 590: 549: 461: 1303:, a party misled by a fraudulent misrepresentation was deemed NOT to have affirmed even after more than a year. 3054: 2722: 2655: 2573: 2515: 2497: 2399: 2218: 1674: 1664: 1342: 768: 397: 110: 3240:. Had the court done so, it would have held that the misrep in this case was fraudulent rather than negligent. 2602: 2082: 3161: 3123: 2726: 2659: 2617: 2403: 2250: 2222: 2136: 1254: 1200: 719: 570: 379: 229: 2631: 1716: 1698: 1272: 888: 295: 255: 180: 156: 138: 2329: 2054: 1138: 3310: 2993: 2916: 2419:

representation. The failure by the agent to take such measures resulted in the contract being set aside.

1875: 1711: 1677:

left the 1967 Act intact. This is known as the fiction of fraud and also extends to tortious liability.

1482: 736: 723: 712: 585: 575: 519: 143: 2012: 1387: 1243:

The misled party must show that he relied on the misstatement and was induced into the contract by it.

2511: 2344: 1774: 3315: 3259: 3034: 2910: 2444: 2429: 2305: 2026: 1882: 1868: 1858: 1649:

For innocent misrepresentation, the claimant may get only damages in lieu of rescission under s.2(2).

1248: 603: 440: 290: 169: 75: 70: 2040: 3110: 2698: 1227: 813: 359: 250: 115: 95: 31: 3174: 3010:, the "special relationship" was between one bank who gave a financial reference to another bank. 2569: 1403: 1269: 1171: 902: 793: 645: 608: 450: 422: 388: 281: 266: 260: 234: 2478: 3255: 1864:

I Brown and A Chandler, 'Deceit, Damages and the Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1)' LMCLQ 40

1851: 1844: 1834: 502: 491: 212: 161: 152: 90: 2667: 2148:

A "condition" is a term whose breach denies the main benefit of the contract to the claimant.

851:

A positive duty that exists to ascertain and convey the truth to the other contracting party,

3251: 2970:

that the contract must subsist, the misled party will lose the case and be liable for costs.

1972: 789: 525: 412: 407: 369: 364: 207: 190: 3119: 2718: 2651: 2395: 2214: 2124: 2930: 1916: 1735: 1703: 1589: 1428: 1263: 1181:- where an opinion is expressed yet this opinion is not actually held by the representor, 976: 772: 528:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith) 417: 147: 124: 2128: 796:

apply. Factors that determine whether or not a representation has become a term include:

2943:

entertained, it cannot be said that it involves a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact."

1416:: The misled party may rescind and claim damages for all directly consequential losses. 878:

with their principal. They must make proper disclosure and must not make secret profits.

2799: 1741: 1285: 1085: 952: 896: 722:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to 663: 554: 485: 470: 218: 65: 1071: 1057: 3304: 3264: 1673:

of Parliament, no changes to the law have been made to address this discrepancy: the

1391:, where the defendant Donohoe was categorically declared completely fraudulent as he: 1067: 454: 202: 175: 105: 1935:

ineffective because of the assistant's misrepresentation, and the claim was allowed.

3236: 1892:

J Cartwright, 'Excluding Liability for Misrepresentation' in A Burrows and E Peel,

1730: 1504: 1500: 1476: 1432: 1289: 1187:- where one party should have known facts on which such an opinion would be based. 1184:- where it is implied that the representor has facts on which to base the opinion, 1113: 1099: 988: 883: 871: 658: 653: 640: 431: 85: 1292:

held that while there was neither breach of contract nor operative mistake, there

1008: 992: 50: 3291:

Swadling controversially says the two are separate (i.e. he is in favour of the ‘

1578: 1261:

A party induced by a misrepresentation is not obliged to check its veracity. In

831: 496: 402: 307: 224: 3234:

as the court failed to pay attention to the definition of fraudulent misrep in

820:

Otherwise, an action may lie in misrepresentation, and perhaps in the torts of

1571: 835:

available for all misrepresentations, subject to the provisions of s.2 of the

821: 698: 681: 100: 1639:

By contrast, a fraudulent misrepresenter is liable in the common law tort of

891:

has begun; but a job applicant owes no duty of disclosure in a job interview.

1840: 1830: 1826: 1763: 913: 875: 649: 324: 17: 2774:

UKHL 43, damages for deceit cannot be reduced for contributory negligence.

1867:

H Beale, ‘Damages in Lieu of Rescission for Misrepresentation’ (1995) 111

1315:

A chart of the 3 types of misrepresentation, with definitions and remedies

1311: 1968: 1567: 479: 374: 197: 42: 3057:

919; Brooks, O & Dodd, A ‘Shogun: A Principled Decision’ (2003) 153

1643:

for all direct consequences, whether or not the losses were foreseeable.

1874:

J O'Sullivan, 'Rescission as a Self-Help Remedy: a Critical Analysis'

1626: 1525: 445: 1325:

damages, injunctions, rescission of the contract, and other measures.

2167: 1640: 825: 2458:

some property were licensees rather than protected business tenants

1857:

R Hooley, 'Damages and the Misrepresentation Act 1967' (1991) 107

1850:

R Taylor, 'Expectation, Reliance and Misrepresentation' (1982) 45

1610: 1310: 839:, and subject to the inherent limitations of an equitable remedy. 2954:

Fraudulent misrepresentation: Fitzroy Robinson vs Mentmore Towers

1881:

W Swadling, ‘Rescission, Property and the Common law’ (2005) 121

3258:, whereas damages for breach of contract protect the claimant's 2771:

Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 2)

1471: 635: 1470:

is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a

1341:

and in 2012, but it escaped the attention of the consolidating

1178:

Exceptions can arise where opinions may be treated as "facts":

917: 1284:, where a gallery sold painting after wrongly saying it was a 625: 2292:"Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv: CHD 24 Feb 2000" 1520:

Depending on the type of misrepresentation, remedies such as

1536:

Entitlement to rescission of the contract, but not damages

1333:

In England, the common law was codified and amended by the

3140:

Because Mr Long accepted this, when it broke down again,

2647:

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

1843:, 'Res Ipsa Loquitur in England and Australia' (1972) 35 715:

both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces

2714:

Commercial Banking Co (Sydney) Ltd v R H Brown & Co

2470: 2468: 2466: 2464: 2387: 2385: 803:

The reliance that one party has shown on the statement.

3047:

For legal reasoning application of the difference see

2170:

has introduced a "right of reasonable expectation". -

2129:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1919/64.pdf

1552:

Entitlement to damages, or rescission of the contract

2237:

Davies v. London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co

1544:

Entitlement to damages or rescission of the contract

1004:

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

3070:"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands". 718:

7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American

2960:, published 18 August 2009, accessed 4 October 2022 2210:

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp

532:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law 854:and subsequently a failure to meet that duty, and 2132: 1613:has the discretion to award damages instead of 857:ultimately a harm must arise from that failure. 687:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions 2981:Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 2364:- the law does not concern itself with trifles 1427:: In the 2009 case of Fitzroy Robinson Ltd. v 2685:Andre & Cie v Ets Michel Blanc & Fils 1654:requiring reasonable foreseeability of loss. 929: 809:The customary norms of the trade in question. 744: 8: 1911: 1909: 1566:A contract vitiated by misrepresentation is 1020:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell 724:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation 1399:(ii) does not believe in the statement, or 936: 922: 914: 751: 737: 38: 1833:, 'Misrepresentation Act 1967' (1967) 30 27:Untrue statement in contract negotiations 1946:Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co 1931:Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co 1690:Vitiating factors in the law of contract 812:The representation forms the basis of a 2785:Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd 2186:""Good faith in English contract law?"" 1905: 1396:(i) knows the statement to be false, or 1268:and the accounts verified this figure. 671: 623: 562: 541: 511: 469: 430: 387: 351: 280: 242: 123: 57: 41: 2858:"Australian Consumer Law and Creators" 2588:Smith v Land & House Property Corp 2327:Lord Blackburn addressed the issue in 806:The reassurances given by the speaker. 800:The relative expertise of the parties. 520:Duty of honest contractual performance 2097:Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton 1802:(8th edn Palgrave, London 2009) ch 13 1123:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 708:of International Commercial Contracts 7: 3082:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 1809:(7th edn Thompson, London 2008) ch 9 1747:United States free speech exceptions 965:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 3035:"Competition and Consumer Act 2010" 2392:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd 2376:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd 2278:Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service 1999:Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Motors 1786:Cases and Materials on Contract Law 1779:Cases and Materials on Contract Law 1768:Introduction to the Law of Contract 1663:changed all that. The court gave a 697:and other civil codes based on the 25: 2556:Smith v Land & House Property 2543:Smith v Land & House Property 1788:(2nd edn Hart, Oxford 2009) ch 11 1385:is defined in the 3-part test in 784:Representation and contract terms 1770:(4th edn Clarendon, Oxford 1994) 1353:misrepresentation was innocent. 1149:Misrepresentation in English law 522:(or doctrine of abuse of rights) 337:Enforcement of foreign judgments 301:Hague Choice of Court Convention 49: 1135:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 881:Employers and employees have a 792:, then the normal remedies for 763:In common law jurisdictions, a 3201:Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd 3157:Leaf v International Galleries 3096:Leaf v International Galleries 3021:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 2831:Leaf v International Galleries 2530:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 2069:Shanklin Pier v Detel Products 1986:Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) 1595:Leaf v International Galleries 1496:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 1339:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 1281:Leaf v International Galleries 1054:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 780:British colonies, e.g. India. 330:Singapore Mediation Convention 1: 1795:(4th edn CUP, Cambridge 2004) 1042:Lambert v Co-op Insurance Ltd 901:substantially amended by the 704:5 Explicitly rejected by the 471:Quasi-contractual obligations 2887:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 2635:(1872) LR 7 Ch App 777, 803. 1967:A contractual term may be a 1807:Treitel: The Law of Contract 1660:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 1548:Fraudulent misrepresentation 1383:Fraudulent misrepresentation 1082:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 3050:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 1540:Negligent misrepresentation 1503:transported this tort into 1358:Negligent misrepresentation 1110:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 3332: 1738:—related criminal law term 1687: 1624: 1607:Misrepresentation Act 1967 1559: 1532:Innocent misrepresentation 1444:Innocent misrepresentation 1335:Misrepresentation Act 1967 1307:Types of Misrepresentation 1096:Saamco v York Montague Ltd 1032:Misrepresentation Act 1967 887:duty to each other once a 837:Misrepresentation Act 1967 342:Hague Judgments Convention 29: 3226:Royscott Trust v Rogerson 3214:Royscott Trust v Rogerson 2479:[1928] NSWStRp 19 1562:Rescission (contract law) 1146: 1132: 1120: 1106: 1092: 1078: 1064: 1050: 1038: 1029: 1015: 999: 985: 973: 961: 949: 944:Misrepresentation sources 693:4 Specific to the German 30:For the documentary, see 2362:lex non curat de minimis 2121:Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer 2110:Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer 1675:Consumer Rights Act 2015 1343:Consumer Rights Act 2015 398:Anticipatory repudiation 148:unequal bargaining power 3085:(1878) 3 App. Cas. 308. 2760:(Hart, Oxford 2007) 355 2668:[1978] VicRp 31 2664:Public Trustee v Taylor 2618:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 2603:Esso Petroleum v Mardon 2083:Evans v Andrea Merzario 1816:(6th edn OUP 2018) ch 5 1793:Contract law in context 1507:, stating the rule as: 1255:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1220:Statement to the misled 1201:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1192:Statements of intention 720:Uniform Commercial Code 695:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 380:Third-party beneficiary 352:Rights of third parties 230:Accord and satisfaction 2758:A Casebook on Contract 2662:(Australia); see also 2251:Lowther v Lord Lowther 1717:Duress in American law 1665:literal interpretation 1468:Negligent misstatement 1463:Negligent misstatement 1316: 910:The "untrue statement" 889:contract of employment 876:fiduciary relationship 451:Liquidated, stipulated 296:Forum selection clause 181:Frustration of purpose 3293:abstraction principle 3120:[1955] HCA 64 3008:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2994:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2917:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2738:(1838) 6 Cl&F 232 2719:[1972] HCA 24 2688:2 Lloyds LR 427, 430. 2652:[1992] HCA 48 2485:(NSW, Australia). 2396:[1995] HCA 68 2215:[1984] HCA 64 2125:[1919] HCA 64 1712:Duress in English law 1605:Under s. 2(2) of the 1483:Hedley Byrne v Heller 1314: 1164:Statements of opinion 968:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218 843:Duties of the parties 713:Canadian contract law 81:Abstraction principle 3282:was a poor decision. 3260:expectation interest 3114:1 WLR 753. See also 2911:Donoghue v Stevenson 2632:Beattie v Lord Ebury 2475:Fitzpatrick v Michel 2342:In the 1908 case of 2294:. December 10, 2020. 1773:H Beale, Bishop and 1474:based upon the 1964 1429:Mentmore Towers Ltd. 1235:from the defendant. 862:English contract law 542:Related areas of law 441:Specific performance 291:Choice of law clause 256:Contract of adhesion 170:Culpa in contrahendo 76:Meeting of the minds 71:Offer and acceptance 2591:(1884) 28 Ch. D. 7. 2559:(1884) 28 Ch D 7 CA 2545:(1884) 28 Ch D 7 CA 2330:Brownlie v Campbell 2055:Andrews v Hopkinson 1975:or innominate term. 867:misrepresentation: 814:collateral contract 706:UNIDROIT Principles 480:Promissory estoppel 360:Privity of contract 313:New York Convention 273:UNIDROIT Principles 116:Collateral contract 111:Implication-in-fact 96:Invitation to treat 32:Miss Representation 3175:Hadley v Baxendale 2803:(1871) LR 6 QB 597 2747:(1885) 29 Ch D 459 2702:(1873) LR 6 HL 377 2570:Bisset v Wilkinson 2533:2 Lloyd's Rep 305. 2495:Bisset v Wilkinson 1758:Books and chapters 1670:shall be so liable 1388:Donohoe v Donohoe 1317: 1172:Bisset v Wilkinson 956:(1766) 3 Burr 1905 903:Insurance Act 2015 794:breach of contract 526:Duty of good faith 423:Fundamental breach 389:Breach of contract 318:UNCITRAL Model Law 282:Dispute resolution 267:Contra proferentem 261:Integration clause 235:Exculpatory clause 3256:reliance interest 2867:. January 7, 2016 2445:With v O'Flanagan 2430:With v O'Flanagan 2416:Lockhart v. Osman 2013:Bannerman v White 1845:Modern Law Review 1684:Vitiating factors 1209:Statements of law 1155: 1154: 1045:2 Lloyd's Rep 485 773:statement of fact 765:misrepresentation 761: 760: 604:England and Wales 512:Duties of parties 503:Negotiorum gestio 492:Unjust enrichment 213:Statute of frauds 162:Unconscionability 134:Misrepresentation 91:Mirror image rule 16:(Redirected from 3323: 3296: 3289: 3283: 3275: 3269: 3247: 3241: 3223: 3217: 3211: 3205: 3197: 3191: 3184: 3178: 3171: 3165: 3152: 3146: 3133: 3127: 3106: 3100: 3092: 3086: 3077: 3071: 3068: 3062: 3045: 3039: 3038: 3031: 3025: 3017: 3011: 3004: 2998: 2990: 2984: 2977: 2971: 2967: 2961: 2950: 2944: 2940: 2934: 2927: 2921: 2906: 2900: 2897: 2891: 2883: 2877: 2876: 2874: 2872: 2862: 2854: 2848: 2847:1969 2 QB 158 CA 2840: 2834: 2828: 2822: 2819: 2813: 2812:(1881) 20 Ch D 1 2810: 2804: 2795: 2789: 2781: 2775: 2767: 2761: 2754: 2748: 2745: 2739: 2736: 2730: 2709: 2703: 2695: 2689: 2681: 2675: 2642: 2636: 2628: 2622: 2613: 2607: 2598: 2592: 2583: 2577: 2566: 2560: 2552: 2546: 2540: 2534: 2525: 2519: 2512:Achut v Achuthan 2507: 2501: 2492: 2486: 2472: 2459: 2455: 2449: 2441: 2435: 2426: 2420: 2413: 2407: 2389: 2380: 2371: 2365: 2359: 2353: 2345:Joel v Law Union 2340: 2334: 2325: 2319: 2316: 2310: 2302: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2282: 2274: 2268: 2265:Fletcher v Krell 2261: 2255: 2247: 2241: 2232: 2226: 2206: 2200: 2199: 2197: 2195: 2190: 2182: 2176: 2164: 2158: 2155: 2149: 2146: 2140: 2134: 2118: 2112: 2107: 2101: 2093: 2087: 2079: 2073: 2065: 2059: 2051: 2045: 2037: 2031: 2023: 2017: 2009: 2003: 1995: 1989: 1982: 1976: 1965: 1959: 1956: 1950: 1942: 1936: 1926: 1920: 1913: 1812:M Chen-Wishart, 1493:Subsequently in 1406:as to its truth. 1362:default category 1278:By contrast, in 1021: 1005: 980:(1881) 20 Ch D 1 938: 931: 924: 915: 753: 746: 739: 581:China (mainland) 550:Conflict of laws 413:Efficient breach 408:Exclusion clause 208:Illusory promise 191:Impracticability 53: 39: 21: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3290: 3286: 3276: 3272: 3248: 3244: 3224: 3220: 3216:3 All ER 294 CA 3212: 3208: 3198: 3194: 3188:The Wagon Mound 3185: 3181: 3172: 3168: 3153: 3149: 3134: 3130: 3107: 3103: 3093: 3089: 3078: 3074: 3069: 3065: 3046: 3042: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3018: 3014: 3005: 3001: 2991: 2987: 2978: 2974: 2968: 2964: 2951: 2947: 2941: 2937: 2928: 2924: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2884: 2880: 2870: 2868: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2851: 2841: 2837: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2816: 2811: 2807: 2796: 2792: 2782: 2778: 2768: 2764: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2737: 2733: 2710: 2706: 2696: 2692: 2682: 2678: 2643: 2639: 2629: 2625: 2614: 2610: 2599: 2595: 2584: 2580: 2567: 2563: 2553: 2549: 2541: 2537: 2526: 2522: 2508: 2504: 2493: 2489: 2473: 2462: 2456: 2452: 2442: 2438: 2427: 2423: 2414: 2410: 2390: 2383: 2372: 2368: 2360: 2356: 2341: 2337: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2306:Gordon v Gordon 2303: 2299: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281:CHD 24 FEB 2000 2275: 2271: 2262: 2258: 2248: 2244: 2233: 2229: 2207: 2203: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2152: 2147: 2143: 2119: 2115: 2108: 2104: 2094: 2090: 2080: 2076: 2066: 2062: 2052: 2048: 2038: 2034: 2027:Schawel v Reade 2024: 2020: 2010: 2006: 1996: 1992: 1983: 1979: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1953: 1943: 1939: 1927: 1923: 1914: 1907: 1903: 1755: 1736:False pretenses 1727: 1704:Undue influence 1692: 1686: 1629: 1623: 1564: 1558: 1518: 1465: 1331: 1322: 1309: 1264:Redgrave v Hurd 1249:Attwood v Small 1241: 1156: 1151: 1142: 1128: 1116: 1102: 1088: 1074: 1060: 1046: 1034: 1025: 1019: 1011: 1003: 995: 981: 977:Redgrave v Hurd 969: 957: 945: 942: 912: 897:uberrimae fidei 864: 845: 786: 757: 728: 600:United Kingdom 563:By jurisdiction 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3329: 3327: 3319: 3318: 3313: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3284: 3270: 3250:contract as a 3242: 3218: 3206: 3192: 3179: 3166: 3147: 3128: 3116:Alati v Kruger 3101: 3087: 3072: 3063: 3040: 3026: 3012: 2999: 2985: 2972: 2962: 2945: 2935: 2922: 2901: 2892: 2878: 2865:artslaw.com.au 2849: 2835: 2823: 2814: 2805: 2800:Smith v Hughes 2790: 2776: 2762: 2749: 2740: 2731: 2704: 2690: 2676: 2637: 2623: 2608: 2593: 2578: 2561: 2547: 2535: 2520: 2502: 2487: 2460: 2450: 2436: 2421: 2408: 2398:, (1995) 183 2381: 2366: 2354: 2335: 2320: 2311: 2297: 2283: 2269: 2256: 2242: 2227: 2201: 2177: 2159: 2150: 2141: 2113: 2102: 2088: 2074: 2060: 2046: 2041:Ecay v Godfrey 2032: 2018: 2004: 1990: 1977: 1960: 1951: 1937: 1921: 1904: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894:Contract Terms 1890: 1886: 1879: 1872: 1865: 1862: 1855: 1848: 1838: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1810: 1803: 1798:E McKendrick, 1796: 1789: 1782: 1771: 1760: 1759: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1744: 1742:Tort of deceit 1739: 1733: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1706: 1701: 1688:Main article: 1685: 1682: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1625:Main article: 1622: 1619: 1560:Main article: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1542: 1541: 1534: 1533: 1517: 1514: 1488:House of Lords 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1448: 1447: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1422: 1408: 1407: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1366: 1365: 1360:is simply the 1330: 1327: 1321: 1320:Australian law 1318: 1308: 1305: 1240: 1237: 1223: 1222: 1212: 1211: 1195: 1194: 1167: 1166: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1144: 1143: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1107: 1104: 1103: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1051: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1000: 997: 996: 986: 983: 982: 974: 971: 970: 962: 959: 958: 953:Carter v Boehm 950: 947: 946: 943: 941: 940: 933: 926: 918: 911: 908: 907: 906: 892: 879: 863: 860: 859: 858: 855: 852: 844: 841: 818: 817: 810: 807: 804: 801: 785: 782: 771:or misleading 759: 758: 756: 755: 748: 741: 733: 730: 729: 727: 726: 716: 711:6 Specific to 709: 702: 691: 688: 685: 680:1 Specific to 677: 674: 673: 669: 668: 667: 666: 661: 656: 643: 638: 630: 629: 621: 620: 619: 618: 613: 612: 611: 606: 598: 593: 588: 583: 578: 573: 565: 564: 560: 559: 558: 557: 555:Commercial law 552: 544: 543: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 523: 514: 513: 509: 508: 507: 506: 499: 494: 489: 486:Quantum meruit 482: 474: 473: 467: 466: 465: 464: 459: 458: 457: 443: 435: 434: 428: 427: 426: 425: 420: 415: 410: 405: 400: 392: 391: 385: 384: 383: 382: 377: 372: 367: 362: 354: 353: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 334: 333: 332: 322: 321: 320: 315: 305: 304: 303: 293: 285: 284: 278: 277: 276: 275: 270: 263: 258: 253: 251:Parol evidence 245: 244: 243:Interpretation 240: 239: 238: 237: 232: 227: 222: 219:Non est factum 215: 210: 205: 200: 195: 194: 193: 188: 183: 173: 166: 165: 164: 150: 141: 136: 128: 127: 121: 120: 119: 118: 113: 108: 103: 98: 93: 88: 83: 78: 73: 68: 60: 59: 55: 54: 46: 45: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3328: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3309: 3308: 3306: 3294: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3274: 3271: 3268:2 All ER 733. 3267: 3266: 3265:East v Maurer 3261: 3257: 3253: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3227: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3196: 3193: 3190: 3189: 3183: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3170: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3138: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3111:Long v. Lloyd 3105: 3102: 3099:1950] 2 KB 86 3098: 3097: 3091: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3076: 3073: 3067: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3051: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3030: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3003: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2982: 2976: 2973: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2949: 2946: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2932: 2926: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2905: 2902: 2896: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2882: 2879: 2866: 2859: 2853: 2850: 2846: 2845: 2839: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2824: 2818: 2815: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2794: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2772: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2753: 2750: 2744: 2741: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721:, (1972) 126 2720: 2716: 2715: 2708: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699:Peek v Gurney 2694: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2672:Supreme Court 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2654:, (1992) 175 2653: 2649: 2648: 2641: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2627: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2597: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2483:Supreme Court 2480: 2476: 2471: 2469: 2467: 2465: 2461: 2454: 2451: 2448:Ch. 575, 584. 2447: 2446: 2440: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2425: 2422: 2417: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2388: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2339: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2324: 2321: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2231: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2217:, (1984) 156 2216: 2212: 2211: 2205: 2202: 2187: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2163: 2160: 2154: 2151: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2008: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1987: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1964: 1961: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1941: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1912: 1910: 1906: 1900: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1707: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1683: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1671: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1655: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1634: 1628: 1620: 1618: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1603: 1599: 1597: 1596: 1591: 1587: 1582: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1569: 1563: 1555: 1553: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1515: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1491: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1462: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1420: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1328: 1326: 1319: 1313: 1306: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1276: 1274: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1259: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1250: 1244: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1230: 1229: 1228:Peek v Gurney 1221: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1203: 1202: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1173: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1091: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1068:East v Maurer 1063: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1037: 1033: 1028: 1023: 1022: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1006: 998: 994: 991: 990: 984: 979: 978: 972: 967: 966: 960: 955: 954: 948: 939: 934: 932: 927: 925: 920: 919: 916: 909: 904: 899: 898: 893: 890: 886: 885: 880: 877: 873: 870: 869: 868: 861: 856: 853: 850: 849: 848: 842: 840: 838: 834: 833: 827: 823: 815: 811: 808: 805: 802: 799: 798: 797: 795: 791: 783: 781: 777: 774: 770: 766: 754: 749: 747: 742: 740: 735: 734: 732: 731: 725: 721: 717: 714: 710: 707: 703: 700: 696: 692: 689: 686: 684:jurisdictions 683: 679: 678: 676: 675: 670: 665: 662: 660: 657: 655: 651: 647: 644: 642: 639: 637: 634: 633: 632: 631: 627: 622: 617: 616:United States 614: 610: 607: 605: 602: 601: 599: 597: 594: 592: 589: 587: 584: 582: 579: 577: 574: 572: 569: 568: 567: 566: 561: 556: 553: 551: 548: 547: 546: 545: 540: 533: 530: 529: 527: 524: 521: 518: 517: 516: 515: 510: 505: 504: 500: 498: 495: 493: 490: 488: 487: 483: 481: 478: 477: 476: 475: 472: 468: 463: 460: 456: 455:penal damages 452: 449: 448: 447: 446:Money damages 444: 442: 439: 438: 437: 436: 433: 429: 424: 421: 419: 416: 414: 411: 409: 406: 404: 401: 399: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 386: 381: 378: 376: 373: 371: 368: 366: 363: 361: 358: 357: 356: 355: 350: 343: 340: 339: 338: 335: 331: 328: 327: 326: 323: 319: 316: 314: 311: 310: 309: 306: 302: 299: 298: 297: 294: 292: 289: 288: 287: 286: 283: 279: 274: 271: 269: 268: 264: 262: 259: 257: 254: 252: 249: 248: 247: 246: 241: 236: 233: 231: 228: 226: 225:Unclean hands 223: 221: 220: 216: 214: 211: 209: 206: 204: 201: 199: 196: 192: 189: 187: 186:Impossibility 184: 182: 179: 178: 177: 176:Force majeure 174: 172: 171: 167: 163: 160: 159: 158: 157:public policy 154: 151: 149: 145: 142: 140: 137: 135: 132: 131: 130: 129: 126: 122: 117: 114: 112: 109: 107: 106:Consideration 104: 102: 99: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 82: 79: 77: 74: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 62: 61: 56: 52: 48: 47: 44: 40: 37: 33: 19: 3311:Contract law 3287: 3279: 3273: 3263: 3245: 3237:Derry v Peek 3235: 3231:per incuriam 3229: 3228:is arguably 3225: 3221: 3213: 3209: 3199: 3195: 3186: 3182: 3173: 3169: 3155: 3150: 3137:Long v Lloyd 3136: 3131: 3126:(Australia). 3115: 3109: 3104: 3094: 3090: 3080: 3075: 3066: 3058: 3048: 3043: 3029: 3019: 3015: 3007: 3002: 2992: 2988: 2980: 2975: 2965: 2957: 2948: 2938: 2929: 2925: 2915: 2909: 2904: 2895: 2885: 2881: 2869:. Retrieved 2864: 2852: 2844:Doyle v Olby 2842: 2838: 2830: 2826: 2817: 2808: 2798: 2793: 2783: 2779: 2769: 2765: 2757: 2752: 2743: 2734: 2729:(Australia). 2712: 2707: 2697: 2693: 2683: 2679: 2663: 2645: 2640: 2630: 2626: 2616: 2611: 2601: 2596: 2586: 2581: 2568: 2564: 2554: 2550: 2542: 2538: 2528: 2523: 2510: 2505: 2494: 2490: 2474: 2453: 2443: 2439: 2428: 2424: 2415: 2411: 2406:(Australia). 2391: 2374: 2369: 2361: 2357: 2349: 2343: 2338: 2328: 2323: 2314: 2304: 2300: 2286: 2276: 2272: 2264: 2259: 2249: 2245: 2235: 2230: 2225:(Australia). 2208: 2204: 2192:. Retrieved 2180: 2171: 2162: 2153: 2144: 2139:(Australia). 2120: 2116: 2109: 2105: 2095: 2091: 2081: 2077: 2067: 2063: 2053: 2049: 2039: 2035: 2025: 2021: 2011: 2007: 1997: 1993: 1984: 1980: 1963: 1954: 1944: 1940: 1929: 1924: 1915: 1893: 1814:Contract Law 1813: 1806: 1800:Contract Law 1799: 1792: 1785: 1778: 1767: 1753:Bibliography 1731:Embezzlement 1693: 1679: 1669: 1658: 1656: 1652: 1632: 1630: 1604: 1600: 1593: 1585: 1583: 1573: 1565: 1551: 1543: 1535: 1519: 1510: 1509: 1505:contract law 1501:Lord Denning 1494: 1492: 1481: 1477:obiter dicta 1475: 1467: 1466: 1453: 1443: 1433:counterclaim 1424: 1419:Doyle v Olby 1417: 1413: 1386: 1382: 1371: 1361: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1332: 1323: 1300:Doyle v Olby 1298: 1293: 1290:Lord Denning 1279: 1277: 1262: 1260: 1253: 1247: 1245: 1242: 1233: 1226: 1224: 1219: 1213: 1208: 1199: 1196: 1191: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1177: 1170: 1168: 1163: 1157: 1139:SI 2008/1277 1108: 1094: 1080: 1066: 1052: 1040: 1017: 1001: 989:Derry v Peek 987: 975: 963: 951: 895: 882: 865: 846: 830: 819: 787: 778: 764: 762: 659:Criminal law 641:Property law 596:Saudi Arabia 501: 484: 265: 217: 168: 133: 86:Posting rule 43:Contract law 36: 18:Misrepresent 3316:English law 2952:Gould, N., 2931:R v Kylsant 2756:A Burrows, 2711:See, e.g., 2644:See, e.g., 2600:See, e.g., 2585:See, e.g., 2348:KB 884 the 2234:See, e.g., 1917:R v Kylsant 1791:H Collins, 1784:A Burrows, 1633:foreseeable 1329:English law 1270:Lord Jessel 1086:EWCA Civ 12 894:A contract 832:prima facie 497:Restitution 308:Arbitration 3305:Categories 3124:High Court 2727:High Court 2660:High Court 2404:High Court 2350:de minimis 2223:High Court 2173:Marleasing 2137:High Court 2131:(1919) 27 2100:A.C. 30 HL 1901:References 1896:(2007) 213 1781:(OUP 2008) 1615:rescission 1579:good title 1556:Rescission 1486:where the 1239:Inducement 1126:2005/29/EC 1072:EWCA Civ 6 1058:EWCA Civ 4 822:negligence 699:pandectist 682:common law 462:Rescission 370:Delegation 365:Assignment 153:Illegality 101:Firm offer 3204:2 QB 158] 3145:contract. 3142:Pearce LJ 2166:However, 1973:condition 1889:analysis. 1841:PS Atiyah 1831:G Treitel 1827:PS Atiyah 1764:PS Atiyah 1657:In 1991, 1592:", as in 1588:through " 1574:ab initio 1522:recission 1402:(iii) is 1286:Constable 884:bona fide 701:tradition 571:Australia 418:Deviation 325:Mediation 58:Formation 3280:Royscott 3024:Q.B. 801 2997:A.C. 465 2958:Building 2890:2 QB 297 2871:June 30, 2221:41 at , 2194:June 30, 1969:warranty 1949:1 KB 805 1821:Articles 1805:E Peel, 1775:Furmston 1725:See also 1586:affirmed 1570:and not 1568:voidable 1516:Remedies 1425:Case law 1404:reckless 1375:damages. 1372:Remedy: 1024:1 QB 525 664:Evidence 636:Tort law 609:Scotland 432:Remedies 375:Novation 198:Hardship 125:Defences 66:Capacity 2833:2 KB 86 2606:QB 801. 2016:(1861). 1708:Duress 1699:Mistake 1627:Damages 1621:Damages 1526:damages 1114:UKHL 62 1100:UKHL 10 874:have a 654:estates 586:Ireland 203:Set-off 144:Threats 139:Mistake 2788:QB 560 2500:177 PC 2168:EU Law 2086:(1976) 2072:(1951) 2058:(1957) 2044:(1947) 2030:(1913) 2002:(1965) 1641:deceit 1635:loss. 1609:, the 1590:laches 1454:Remedy 1414:Remedy 1009:UKHL 4 993:UKHL 1 872:Agents 826:deceit 652:, and 650:trusts 624:Other 576:Canada 3118: 2861:(PDF) 2725:337, 2717: 2666: 2658:353, 2650: 2477: 2402:563, 2394: 2213: 2189:(PDF) 2135:133, 2123: 1611:court 1572:void 1524:, or 1436:deal. 769:false 767:is a 672:Notes 646:Wills 628:areas 591:India 453:, or 403:Cover 3252:term 3154:See 3108:See 3079:See 3061:1898 2873:2023 2797:see 2576:177. 2527:See 2518:177. 2509:See 2196:2023 1861:547, 1829:and 1472:tort 824:and 790:term 155:and 146:and 3164:86. 3135:in 3059:NLJ 3006:In 2914:or 2723:CLR 2656:CLR 2615:In 2400:CLR 2373:In 2263:In 2219:CLR 2133:CLR 2127:, [ 1928:In 1883:LQR 1878:509 1876:CLJ 1869:LQR 1859:LQR 1854:139 1852:MLR 1847:337 1837:369 1835:MLR 1499:, 1480:in 1345:). 1294:was 1246:In 626:law 3307:: 3162:KB 3160:2 3122:, 3055:AC 3053:1 2956:, 2863:. 2670:, 2574:AC 2516:AC 2498:AC 2481:, 2463:^ 2384:^ 1971:, 1908:^ 1871:60 1777:, 1766:, 1288:, 1273:MR 1204:. 1175:. 648:, 3037:. 2920:. 2875:. 2198:. 1364:. 1141:) 1137:( 937:e 930:t 923:v 905:. 816:. 752:e 745:t 738:v 34:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index