Misrepresentation in a Contract
First, we must define misrepresentation and what it means under British law. Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law. This means a false statement presented as fact as made by one party to another party. This has the effect of fraudulently inducing the defrauded party into a contract. An example can be seen when under certain given circumstances, false promises or statements by a seller of goods with regard to the quality or nature of the product could constitute misrepresentation. When a finding of misrepresentation is rendered, this allows for remedy of rescission and possibly damages according to the type of misrepresentation involved.1 As we shall see, the case law provides great breadth for claims against misrepresentation in contracts and Kyle has a broad base for a claim.
Analysis
In such a situation, Kyle Jerome, would have a case. During negotiations, the Concert Hall manager, Liam, had told Kyle that the Concert Hall would hold 5,000 people and that it had good acoustics for all music types. However, the hall will actually only seat 4,000. The concerts sell out and turn away 1,000 ticket holders per night. Also, the acoustics are so bad that a large number of audience members demand their money back...
Both parties are then put back into the positions they had before their agreement was made. It is possible that the misrepresentation had been incorporated as a part of a new contract. The undermining of the deceptive contract allows for a claim for a loss in expectations. In such a case, the misrepresentee can sue for damages. The misrepresentee may also sue for losses that resulted from the reliance upon the misrepresentation. In addition to the Act, we will examine legal cases that frame the boundaries of the case law.
Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884)
This case represents a U.K. contract law case that concerned misrepresentation. It holds that a simple statement of opinion can represent that one knows certain facts. In this way, it is still possible that one may have still made a misrepresentation. The facts of the case were that House Property Corp (LHP) had contracted with Mr. Smith to buy the title of the Marine Hotel at Walton-on-the-Naze. Mr. Smith had advertised that it was let out to Mr. Fleck. Fleck went bankrupt, owing back rent. The bankruptcy…
