GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Kostenlos registrieren

Quiz

Misrepresentation Quiz

emhutton 6 Fragen

Quiz starten

Dieses Quiz enthält Fragetypen, die sich im gewohnten Player öffnen.

Fragen in diesem Quiz (6)

  1. 1The elements of a claim in misrepresentation are:
    1. [blank_start]Untrue statement of fact[blank_end]
    2. [blank_start]Party to the contract[blank_end]
    3. [blank_start]Inducement[blank_end]
    4. [blank_start]Defences[blank_end]
    5. [blank_start]Remedies[blank_end]
    1. AUntrue statement of fact
    2. BParty to the contract
    3. CInducement
    4. DDefences
    5. ERemedies
  2. 2A. Untrue statement of fact:

    o Test of [blank_start]falsity[blank_end] = whether the statement is “[blank_start]substantially correct[blank_end]”? – [blank_start]Avon Insurance plc. v Swire Fraser Ltd[blank_end] (2000) per Rix J
    The notion of “[blank_start]statement[blank_end]” can extend to [blank_start]mere conduct without words[blank_end] – [blank_start]Spice Girls v Aprilia[blank_end] World Service (2002)
    o The following are NOT [blank_start]untrue statements of fact[blank_end]:
    o A mere “[blank_start]puff[blank_end]” or “[blank_start]sales patter[blank_end]” – [blank_start]Dimmock v Hallett[blank_end] (1866)
    o Statements of intention, unless at the time of stating the [blank_start]intention[blank_end] the party did not actually have such an intention – [blank_start]Edgington v Fitzmaurice[blank_end] (1885)
    o Statements of [blank_start]opinion[blank_end], unless the maker of the statement did not actually hold the opinion or had no [blank_start]reasonable grounds[blank_end] on which to base the opinion – [blank_start]Bisset v Wilkinson[blank_end] (1927)
    o Statements of law in the [blank_start]abstract[blank_end], unless made dishonestly or without reasonable basis. But a statement about the [blank_start]effect of the law[blank_end] in a particular situation can be actionable as misrepresentation – [blank_start]Pankhania[blank_end] v London Borough of Hackney (2002)
    o There is no duty to disclose [blank_start]facts[blank_end] which if known would have affected the other party’s decision to enter into the contract – [blank_start]Turner v Green[blank_end] (1895)
    o However, [blank_start]silence[blank_end] amounts to misrepresentation in four situations:
    (i) [blank_start]Half-truths[blank_end]: if a party makes a statement which is in fact true, they may still be guilty of misrepresentation by what is left unsaid – [blank_start]Dimmock v Hallett[blank_end] (1866)
    (ii) [blank_start]Change of circumstances[blank_end]: if a statement, which was true at the time, becomes untrue, then the representor has a duty to inform the representee about the change – [blank_start]With[blank_end] v O’Flanagan (1936)
    (iii) Contracts of [blank_start]good faith[blank_end] – e.g. insurance contracts
    (iv) Certain confidential or [blank_start]fiduciary relationships[blank_end]
    1. Afalsity
    2. Bsubstantially correct
    3. CAvon Insurance plc. v Swire Fraser Ltd
    4. Dstatement
    5. Emere conduct without words
    6. FSpice Girls v Aprilia
    7. Guntrue statements of fact
    8. Hpuff
    9. Isales patter
    10. JDimmock v Hallett
    11. KEdgington v Fitzmaurice
    12. Lintention
    13. Mopinion
    14. Nreasonable grounds
    15. OBisset v Wilkinson
    16. Pabstract
    17. Qeffect of the law
    18. RPankhania
    19. Sfiduciary relationships
    20. Tgood faith
    21. UDimmock v Hallett
    22. VHalf-truths
    23. Wsilence
    24. Xfacts
    25. YTurner v Green
    26. ZWith
    27. AAChange of circumstances
  3. 3B. [blank_start]Party[blank_end] to the contract:

    Misrepresentation must be made by a party to the contract, though it can be made by via a party’s [blank_start]agent[blank_end]. There is no [blank_start]remedy[blank_end] in contract law for a misrepresentation made by a non-party; there may be, however, a remedy in [blank_start]tort[blank_end].
    1. Aagent
    2. Bremedy
    3. Ctort
    4. DParty
  4. 4C. Inducement:

    o The [blank_start]misrepresentation[blank_end] must [blank_start]influence[blank_end] a party in deciding whether or not to enter the contract. It need not be the [blank_start]sole[blank_end] inducement – [blank_start]Edgington v Fitzmaurice[blank_end] (1885)
    o If the misrepresentation is [blank_start]fraudulent[blank_end], there is a [blank_start]rebuttable presumption[blank_end] that it induced the contract – [blank_start]Dadourian[blank_end] Group International v Simms (2009)

    Thus the misrepresentation is not actionable if the representee:
    o Never knew of its [blank_start]existence[blank_end] – [blank_start]Horsfall v Thomas[blank_end] (1862)
    o Did not allow it to affect their [blank_start]judgment[blank_end] – [blank_start]Smith v Chadwick[blank_end] (1884); Attwood v Small (1838)
    o Verification duty? [blank_start]Redgrave v Hurd[blank_end] (1881)
    1. Amisrepresentation
    2. Binfluence
    3. Csole
    4. DEdgington v Fitzmaurice
    5. Efraudulent
    6. Frebuttable presumption
    7. GDadourian
    8. Hexistence
    9. IHorsfall v Thomas
    10. Jjudgment
    11. KRedgrave v Hurd
    12. LSmith v Chadwick
  5. 5Types of Misrepresentation:

    o FRAUDULENT – false statement made (i) [blank_start]knowingly[blank_end], or (ii) without belief in its [blank_start]truth[blank_end], or (iii) [blank_start]recklessly[blank_end] – [blank_start]Derry v Peek[blank_end] (1889)
    o NEGLIGENT – misrepresentation made [blank_start]carelessly[blank_end]
    o [blank_start]INNOCENT[blank_end] –representor honestly believes in the truth of the statement and had [blank_start]reasonable grounds[blank_end] for their belief
    o NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT AT COMMON LAW – arises in the context of a “[blank_start]special relationship[blank_end]” between persons. The maker of the statement is under a [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end] at common law to do all that is reasonable to ensure that the statement is correct – [blank_start]Hedley Byrne v Heller[blank_end] (1964). This tort provides a remedy where the statement is made by a [blank_start]third party.[blank_end]
    1. Aknowingly
    2. Btruth
    3. Crecklessly
    4. DDerry v Peek
    5. Ecarelessly
    6. FINNOCENT
    7. Greasonable grounds
    8. HHedley Byrne v Heller
    9. Ispecial relationship
    10. Jthird party.
    11. Kduty of care
  6. 6D. Remedies:

    (I) [blank_start]RESCISSION[blank_end]

    o [blank_start]Equitable[blank_end] remedy available for all types of misrepresentation.
    o Innocent party must exercise choice: to [blank_start]rescind[blank_end] or to [blank_start]affirm[blank_end] contract.
    o Effect of rescission: parties are put back to their [blank_start]pre-contractual[blank_end] position.
    o Notice: Generally, innocent party must notify [blank_start]representor[blank_end] of decision to rescind. If impossible to find representor, contract can be [blank_start]rescinded[blank_end] by conduct of representee – [blank_start]Car and Universal[blank_end] Finance Co. Ltd. v. Caldwell (1965)
    [blank_start]Bars[blank_end] to rescission:
    o When innocent party [blank_start]affirms[blank_end] contract (after discovering true state of affairs) – [blank_start]Long v. Lloyd[blank_end] (1958)
    o When parties cannot be restored to substantially same pre-contractual position (principle of restitutio in integrum)
    o When third party has acquired an interest in [blank_start]good faith[blank_end] and for value of subject matter of [blank_start]contract[blank_end] – White v. Garden (1851); cf. Car and Universal Finance Co. Ltd. v. Caldwell (1965)
    o When substantial time has elapsed. However, in cases of [blank_start]fraud[blank_end] or breach of [blank_start]fiduciary[blank_end] duty, lapse of time before discovery that statement is false is not bar to rescission, but [blank_start]lapse of time[blank_end] after discovery is evidence of affirmation.

    (II) [blank_start]DAMAGES[blank_end]
    For fraudulent misrepresentation:
    o Damages available in tort of [blank_start]deceit[blank_end]. Innocent party can recover all loss (including consequential loss) directly flowing from [blank_start]breach[blank_end] to put them in position they would have been in had representation not been made: Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. (1969); affirmed in Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v. Scimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd. (1997). Innocent party also entitled to [blank_start]full compensation[blank_end] for loss suffered after date of contract.
    o Representee under duty to mitigate loss once they discover fraud: Down v. Chappell (1997).
    For negligent misrepresentation:
    o Damages available under s.2(1) of Misrepresentation Act 1967
    o Burden of proof (or, more accurately, disproof) is quite onerous – Howard Marine & Dredging Co. Ltd. V. A. Ogden & Sons Ltd. (1978).
    o Damages assessed as for tort of deceit (“fiction of fraud”) – [blank_start]Royscot Trust[blank_end] Ltd. v. Rogerson (1991); cf. Smith New Court Securities Ltd. V. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd. (1997).
    o Where misrepresentation is made by an agent, the innocent party can only bring action under MA s. 2(1) against contracting party, not party’s agent: Resolute Marine v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (1983).
    o [blank_start]Damages[blank_end] may be reduced if evidence of [blank_start]contributory negligence[blank_end] on part of innocent party – see Gran Gelato v. Richcliff (Group) Ltd. (1992).
    o Damages may be awarded in [blank_start]lieu[blank_end] of rescission in cases of (non-fraudulent) negligent and [blank_start]non-negligent[blank_end] misrepresentation: see MA s.2(2).
    o Measure of damages here is at court’s [blank_start]discretion[blank_end].
    o Damages in lieu of rescission usually assumed as not available if right to rescind has already been lost – Government of Zanzibar v. British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd. (2000); cf. Thomas Witter v. TBP Industries (1996) per Jacobs J.
    For innocent misrepresentation:
    o MA s.2(2) may give monetary relief in cases of wholly innocent misrepresentation, but up to the court to decide.
    o Note too possibility to get [blank_start]indemnity[blank_end] in connection with action for rescission – Whittington v. Seale-Hayne (1900).
    o Misrepresentations which become terms – See MA s. 1: right to rescission for misrepresentation not lost when misrepresentation becomes term.
    Limiting liability for misrepresentation:
    o Contractual clauses attempting to exclude or limit liability for [blank_start]misrepresentation[blank_end] are construed strictly – Thomas Witter v. TBP Industries Ltd. (1996); Inntrepreneur Pub Co. v. East Crown Ltd. (2000).
    o Also several statutory controls, the central of which is MA s. 3.
    o However, some types of [blank_start]clauses[blank_end] (e.g. “no-reliance” clauses) may not be caught by MA s. 3 – Watford Electronics Ltd. v. Sanderson CFL Ltd. (2001).
    1. ARESCISSION
    2. BEquitable
    3. Crescind
    4. Daffirm
    5. Epre-contractual
    6. Frepresentor
    7. Grescinded
    8. HCar and Universal
    9. ILong v. Lloyd
    10. Jaffirms
    11. KBars
    12. Lfraud
    13. Mfiduciary
    14. Nlapse of time
    15. Ogood faith
    16. PDAMAGES
    17. Qdeceit
    18. Rbreach
    19. Sfull compensation
    20. Tcontributory negligence
    21. Unon-negligent
    22. Vmisrepresentation
    23. Wdiscretion
    24. XRoyscot Trust
    25. Ycontract
    26. ZDamages
    27. AAlieu
    28. ABindemnity
    29. ACclauses

Informationen

Beschreibung
Fill in the blanks quiz on misrepresentation.
Sprache
English
Aufrufe
192
Bewertung
Noch keine Bewertungen
Bewerte dieses Quiz
Bewerte dieses Quiz

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck