Misrepresentation - Knowledge

2368:, 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defaulted on the rent and subsequently vacated the premises, Krakowski found out about the additional agreement and rescinded the contract with Eurolynx.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all material facts about the 'strong tenant' was enough to constitute a misrepresentation and the contract could be rescinded on these grounds. 1148:

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.

2298:(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. 2243:(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 Accordingly, the contract could be rescinded. 40: 1587:; and the claimant will be estopped from rescinding.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. 1301: 1420:, 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' 1241:, 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. 1500:...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'. 1338:

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.

1256:

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,

3128:

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.

2958:

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

1570:. 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. 1341:

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

1223:

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

1203:

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

1661:

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

3238:

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

3133:

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

2446:

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

1147:

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

768:

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

855:

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

1313:

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

889:

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

2422:

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

1923:

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

2423:

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.".

1642:

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

1337:

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"

2407:

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

2931:

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

1566:. 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 1445:: 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.) 3266:

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

1186:

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

2610:(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. 1656:

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

1220:, 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. 1326:. (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 1606:, "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." 2759: 764:

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).

1590:

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.

1285:

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

2635: 817:

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

3284:’). 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. 2702: 2225: 2174: 2198: 2256:(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. 1424:

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

2673: 1517:, 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. 1363:

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

2341:

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

1947:

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"

1877:

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

2307:

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.

1934: 1919: 1476: 2773: 301: 2364: 1987: 1214:

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

2544: 3251:, 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 2057: 1974: 3176: 2161: 1264:

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.

306: 2968: 2591: 2071: 2239: 2229:(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..." 2620: 1261: 2318: 2043: 1247:

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.

574: 2001: 1376: 1158:

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

991: 679:

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

3243:

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

2500: 2333: 1763: 520: 2888:

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

2294: 2015: 1237: 924: 569: 2942: 2029: 694: 261: 3099: 2687: 1620:"Damages" are monetary compensation for loss. In contract and tort, damages will be awarded if the breach of contract (or breach of duty) causes 1216: 1258: 777:

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

1479:

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

1635:

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).

1007: 2266: 508: 1683:

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

1678: 739: 2810:

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

1874:

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

2576: 1111: 917: 712: 2897:

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

1435:

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

3219: 3070: 2846: 2085: 1735: 1204:

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

953: 836:

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

2663:(Vic, Australia). While dealing with a mistake of law, similar reasoning should apply to a misrepresentation of law. 1669:

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

2146:"Inherent limitations": equitable remedies are only ever discretionary; and one must "come to equity with clean hands". 1573:

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

1114: 2322:(1880) 5 App Cas 925 when he noted "...the concealment of a material circumstance known to you...avoids the policy." 2471: 1137: 910: 325: 289: 2280: 1123: 1292:, a party misled by a fraudulent misrepresentation was deemed NOT to have affirmed even after more than a year. 3189: 3145: 3084: 3009: 2832: 2518: 1583: 1484: 1407: 1327: 1288: 1269: 1042: 318: 3229:. Had the court done so, it would have held that the misrep in this case was fraudulent rather than negligent. 1030: 2875: 1648: 1070: 584: 174: 3281: 3130: 3038: 1961: 1127: 1098: 69: 2408:

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

1666:

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

1595: 1323: 1232:

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

1084: 1020: 825: 732: 604: 330: 683: 3023: 2660: 1638:

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

1603: 1550: 1510: 579: 538: 450: 3043: 2711: 2644: 2562: 2504: 2486: 2388: 2207: 1663: 1653: 1331: 757: 386: 99: 3150: 3112: 2999:, the "special relationship" was between one bank who gave a financial reference to another bank. 2715: 2648: 2606: 2392: 2211: 2125: 1243: 1189: 708: 559: 368: 218: 2467: 1705: 1687: 877: 284: 244: 169: 145: 127: 1853:

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

3299: 2982: 2905: 2656: 2137:

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

1864: 1700: 1471: 840:

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

725: 701: 564: 132: 2959:

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

3304: 3248: 3108: 2899: 2707: 2640: 2433: 2418: 2384: 2203: 2113: 1871: 1857: 1847: 592: 429: 279: 158: 64: 59: 1170:- where an opinion is expressed yet this opinion is not actually held by the representor, 517:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith) 8: 2117: 802: 785:

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

348: 239: 104: 84: 20: 2932:

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

1405:: The misled party may rescind and claim damages for all directly consequential losses. 867:

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

3163: 2558: 1392: 1160: 1074: 891: 782: 711:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to 634: 597: 439: 411: 377: 270: 255: 249: 223: 1060: 1046: 3244: 1840: 1833: 1823: 1662:

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

1380:, where the defendant Donohoe was categorically declared completely fraudulent as he: 491: 480: 201: 150: 141: 79: 1924:

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

3240: 1881:

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

1176:- where one party should have known facts on which such an opinion would be based. 1173:- where it is implied that the representor has facts on which to base the opinion, 1102: 1088: 778: 514: 401: 396: 358: 353: 196: 179: 1281:

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

997: 981: 3280:

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

2919: 1905: 1724: 1692: 1578: 1417: 1252: 965: 761: 406: 136: 113: 1250:

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

3223:

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

2788: 1730: 1274: 941: 885: 809:

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

652: 543: 474: 459: 207: 54: 824:

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

3293: 3253: 1628:

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

1056: 880:

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

443: 191: 164: 94: 902: 186: 3225: 1719: 1493: 1489: 1465: 1421: 1278: 977: 872: 860: 647: 642: 629: 420: 74: 2763:

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

1856:

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

1304:

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

1567: 820: 485: 391: 296: 213: 3046:

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

1632:

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

1863:

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

1560: 810: 687: 670: 89: 1314:

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

1829: 1819: 1815: 1752: 864: 638: 313: 39: 2447:

some property were licensees rather than protected business tenants

1957: 1556: 468: 363: 31: 1846:

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

1839:

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

828:, and subject to the inherent limitations of an equitable remedy. 2943:

Fraudulent misrepresentation: Fitzroy Robinson vs Mentmore Towers

1870:

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

1615: 1514: 434: 3247:, whereas damages for breach of contract protect the claimant's 2760:

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

2156: 1629: 1459:

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

1330:

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

1300: 1167:

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

814: 1273:, where a gallery sold painting after wrongly saying it was a 2281:"Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv: CHD 24 Feb 2000" 1599: 1509:

Depending on the type of misrepresentation, remedies such as

1525:

Entitlement to rescission of the contract, but not damages

1460: 1322:

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

624: 3129:

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

2636:

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

1832:, 'Res Ipsa Loquitur in England and Australia' (1972) 35 614: 704:

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

2703:

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

2459: 2457: 2455: 2453: 2376: 2374: 792:

The reliance that one party has shown on the statement.

3036:

For legal reasoning application of the difference see

2159:

has introduced a "right of reasonable expectation". -

2118:

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

1541:

Entitlement to damages, or rescission of the contract

2492: 2226:

Davies v. London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co

1533:

Entitlement to damages or rescission of the contract

993:

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

3059:"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands". 2450: 2371: 772: 707:

7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American

2949:, published 18 August 2009, accessed 4 October 2022 2199:

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp

898: 521:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law 843:and subsequently a failure to meet that duty, and 3291: 2730: 2121: 2510: 1602:has the discretion to award damages instead of 846:ultimately a harm must arise from that failure. 676:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions 2970:Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 2353:- the law does not concern itself with trifles 1416:: In the 2009 case of Fitzroy Robinson Ltd. v 3062: 2674:Andre & Cie v Ets Michel Blanc & Fils 1643:requiring reasonable foreseeability of loss. 1295: 932: 918: 798:The customary norms of the trade in question. 733: 1900: 1898: 1555:A contract vitiated by misrepresentation is 3091: 1009:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell 713:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation 1388:(ii) does not believe in the statement, or 925: 911: 740: 726: 1895: 1822:, 'Misrepresentation Act 1967' (1967) 30 1451: 16:Untrue statement in contract negotiations 1935:Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co 1920:Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co 1679:Vitiating factors in the law of contract 1299: 831: 801:The representation forms the basis of a 2774:Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd 2175:""Good faith in English contract law?"" 1385:(i) knows the statement to be false, or 1257:and the accounts verified this figure. 850: 3292: 3030: 2847:"Australian Consumer Law and Creators" 2577:Smith v Land & House Property Corp 2316:Lord Blackburn addressed the issue in 795:The reassurances given by the speaker. 789:The relative expertise of the parties. 509:Duty of honest contractual performance 3137: 2086:Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton 1791:(8th edn Palgrave, London 2009) ch 13 1112:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 906: 697:of International Commercial Contracts 3071:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 1798:(7th edn Thompson, London 2008) ch 9 1736:United States free speech exceptions 1672: 954:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 3024:"Competition and Consumer Act 2010" 2381:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd 2365:Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd 2267:Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service 1988:Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Motors 1775:Cases and Materials on Contract Law 1768:Cases and Materials on Contract Law 1757:Introduction to the Law of Contract 1652:changed all that. The court gave a 686:and other civil codes based on the 13: 14: 3316: 2545:Smith v Land & House Property 2532:Smith v Land & House Property 1777:(2nd edn Hart, Oxford 2009) ch 11 1374:is defined in the 3-part test in 1308: 773:Representation and contract terms 1759:(4th edn Clarendon, Oxford 1994) 1342:misrepresentation was innocent. 1138:Misrepresentation in English law 511:(or doctrine of abuse of rights) 326:Enforcement of foreign judgments 290:Hague Choice of Court Convention 38: 3274: 3260: 3232: 3208: 3196: 3182: 3169: 3156: 3118: 3077: 3053: 3016: 3002: 2989: 2975: 2962: 2952: 2935: 2925: 2912: 2891: 2882: 2868: 2839: 2825: 2813: 2804: 2795: 2780: 2766: 2752: 2739: 2721: 2694: 2680: 2666: 2627: 2613: 2598: 2583: 2568: 2551: 2537: 2525: 2477: 2440: 2426: 2411: 2398: 2356: 2344: 2325: 2310: 2301: 2287: 2273: 2259: 2246: 2232: 2217: 2191: 2167: 2149: 2140: 2131: 2103: 2092: 2078: 2064: 2050: 2036: 2022: 1741: 1124:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 870:Employers and employees have a 781:, then the normal remedies for 752:In common law jurisdictions, a 3190:Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd 3146:Leaf v International Galleries 3085:Leaf v International Galleries 3010:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 2820:Leaf v International Galleries 2519:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 2058:Shanklin Pier v Detel Products 2008: 1994: 1980: 1975:Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) 1967: 1950: 1941: 1927: 1911: 1584:Leaf v International Galleries 1485:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 1328:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 1317: 1270:Leaf v International Galleries 1043:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 769:British colonies, e.g. India. 319:Singapore Mediation Convention 1: 1889: 1784:(4th edn CUP, Cambridge 2004) 1544: 1227: 1031:Lambert v Co-op Insurance Ltd 890:substantially amended by the 693:5 Explicitly rejected by the 460:Quasi-contractual obligations 2876:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 2624:(1872) LR 7 Ch App 777, 803. 1956:A contractual term may be a 1796:Treitel: The Law of Contract 1649:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 1537:Fraudulent misrepresentation 1372:Fraudulent misrepresentation 1071:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 7: 3039:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 1713: 1529:Negligent misrepresentation 1504: 1492:transported this tort into 1347:Negligent misrepresentation 1099:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 10: 3321: 1727:—related criminal law term 1676: 1613: 1609: 1596:Misrepresentation Act 1967 1548: 1521:Innocent misrepresentation 1433:Innocent misrepresentation 1324:Misrepresentation Act 1967 1296:Types of Misrepresentation 1085:Saamco v York Montague Ltd 1021:Misrepresentation Act 1967 876:duty to each other once a 826:Misrepresentation Act 1967 331:Hague Judgments Convention 18: 3215:Royscott Trust v Rogerson 3203:Royscott Trust v Rogerson 2468:[1928] NSWStRp 19 1551:Rescission (contract law) 1135: 1121: 1109: 1095: 1081: 1067: 1053: 1039: 1027: 1018: 1004: 988: 974: 962: 950: 938: 933:Misrepresentation sources 682:4 Specific to the German 19:For the documentary, see 2351:lex non curat de minimis 2110:Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer 2099:Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer 1664:Consumer Rights Act 2015 1332:Consumer Rights Act 2015 387:Anticipatory repudiation 137:unequal bargaining power 3074:(1878) 3 App. Cas. 308. 2749:(Hart, Oxford 2007) 355 2657:[1978] VicRp 31 2653:Public Trustee v Taylor 2607:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 2592:Esso Petroleum v Mardon 2072:Evans v Andrea Merzario 1805:(6th edn OUP 2018) ch 5 1782:Contract law in context 1496:, stating the rule as: 1244:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1209:Statement to the misled 1190:Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1181:Statements of intention 709:Uniform Commercial Code 684:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 369:Third-party beneficiary 341:Rights of third parties 219:Accord and satisfaction 2747:A Casebook on Contract 2651:(Australia); see also 2240:Lowther v Lord Lowther 1706:Duress in American law 1654:literal interpretation 1457:Negligent misstatement 1452:Negligent misstatement 1305: 899:The "untrue statement" 878:contract of employment 865:fiduciary relationship 440:Liquidated, stipulated 285:Forum selection clause 170:Frustration of purpose 3282:abstraction principle 3109:[1955] HCA 64 2997:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2983:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2906:Hedley Byrne v Heller 2727:(1838) 6 Cl&F 232 2708:[1972] HCA 24 2677:2 Lloyds LR 427, 430. 2641:[1992] HCA 48 2474:(NSW, Australia). 2385:[1995] HCA 68 2204:[1984] HCA 64 2114:[1919] HCA 64 1701:Duress in English law 1594:Under s. 2(2) of the 1472:Hedley Byrne v Heller 1303: 1153:Statements of opinion 957:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218 832:Duties of the parties 702:Canadian contract law 70:Abstraction principle 3271:was a poor decision. 3249:expectation interest 3103:1 WLR 753. See also 2900:Donoghue v Stevenson 2621:Beattie v Lord Ebury 2464:Fitzpatrick v Michel 2331:In the 1908 case of 2283:. December 10, 2020. 1762:H Beale, Bishop and 1463:based upon the 1964 1418:Mentmore Towers Ltd. 1224:from the defendant. 851:English contract law 531:Related areas of law 430:Specific performance 280:Choice of law clause 245:Contract of adhesion 159:Culpa in contrahendo 65:Meeting of the minds 60:Offer and acceptance 2580:(1884) 28 Ch. D. 7. 2548:(1884) 28 Ch D 7 CA 2534:(1884) 28 Ch D 7 CA 2319:Brownlie v Campbell 2044:Andrews v Hopkinson 1964:or innominate term. 856:misrepresentation: 803:collateral contract 695:UNIDROIT Principles 469:Promissory estoppel 349:Privity of contract 302:New York Convention 262:UNIDROIT Principles 105:Collateral contract 100:Implication-in-fact 85:Invitation to treat 21:Miss Representation 3164:Hadley v Baxendale 2792:(1871) LR 6 QB 597 2736:(1885) 29 Ch D 459 2691:(1873) LR 6 HL 377 2559:Bisset v Wilkinson 2522:2 Lloyd's Rep 305. 2484:Bisset v Wilkinson 1747:Books and chapters 1659:shall be so liable 1377:Donohoe v Donohoe 1306: 1161:Bisset v Wilkinson 945:(1766) 3 Burr 1905 892:Insurance Act 2015 783:breach of contract 515:Duty of good faith 412:Fundamental breach 378:Breach of contract 307:UNCITRAL Model Law 271:Dispute resolution 256:Contra proferentem 250:Integration clause 224:Exculpatory clause 3245:reliance interest 2856:. January 7, 2016 2434:With v O'Flanagan 2419:With v O'Flanagan 2405:Lockhart v. Osman 2002:Bannerman v White 1834:Modern Law Review 1673:Vitiating factors 1198:Statements of law 1144: 1143: 1034:2 Lloyd's Rep 485 762:statement of fact 754:misrepresentation 750: 749: 593:England and Wales 501:Duties of parties 492:Negotiorum gestio 481:Unjust enrichment 202:Statute of frauds 151:Unconscionability 123:Misrepresentation 80:Mirror image rule 3312: 3285: 3278: 3272: 3264: 3258: 3236: 3230: 3212: 3206: 3200: 3194: 3186: 3180: 3173: 3167: 3160: 3154: 3141: 3135: 3122: 3116: 3095: 3089: 3081: 3075: 3066: 3060: 3057: 3051: 3034: 3028: 3027: 3020: 3014: 3006: 3000: 2993: 2987: 2979: 2973: 2966: 2960: 2956: 2950: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2923: 2916: 2910: 2895: 2889: 2886: 2880: 2872: 2866: 2865: 2863: 2861: 2851: 2843: 2837: 2836:1969 2 QB 158 CA 2829: 2823: 2817: 2811: 2808: 2802: 2801:(1881) 20 Ch D 1 2799: 2793: 2784: 2778: 2770: 2764: 2756: 2750: 2743: 2737: 2734: 2728: 2725: 2719: 2698: 2692: 2684: 2678: 2670: 2664: 2631: 2625: 2617: 2611: 2602: 2596: 2587: 2581: 2572: 2566: 2555: 2549: 2541: 2535: 2529: 2523: 2514: 2508: 2501:Achut v Achuthan 2496: 2490: 2481: 2475: 2461: 2448: 2444: 2438: 2430: 2424: 2415: 2409: 2402: 2396: 2378: 2369: 2360: 2354: 2348: 2342: 2334:Joel v Law Union 2329: 2323: 2314: 2308: 2305: 2299: 2291: 2285: 2284: 2277: 2271: 2263: 2257: 2254:Fletcher v Krell 2250: 2244: 2236: 2230: 2221: 2215: 2195: 2189: 2188: 2186: 2184: 2179: 2171: 2165: 2153: 2147: 2144: 2138: 2135: 2129: 2123: 2107: 2101: 2096: 2090: 2082: 2076: 2068: 2062: 2054: 2048: 2040: 2034: 2026: 2020: 2012: 2006: 1998: 1992: 1984: 1978: 1971: 1965: 1954: 1948: 1945: 1939: 1931: 1925: 1915: 1909: 1902: 1801:M Chen-Wishart, 1482:Subsequently in 1395:as to its truth. 1351:default category 1267:By contrast, in 1010: 994: 969:(1881) 20 Ch D 1 927: 920: 913: 904: 903: 742: 735: 728: 570:China (mainland) 539:Conflict of laws 402:Efficient breach 397:Exclusion clause 197:Illusory promise 180:Impracticability 42: 28: 27: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3279: 3275: 3265: 3261: 3237: 3233: 3213: 3209: 3205:3 All ER 294 CA 3201: 3197: 3187: 3183: 3177:The Wagon Mound 3174: 3170: 3161: 3157: 3142: 3138: 3123: 3119: 3096: 3092: 3082: 3078: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3054: 3035: 3031: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3007: 3003: 2994: 2990: 2980: 2976: 2967: 2963: 2957: 2953: 2940: 2936: 2930: 2926: 2917: 2913: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2883: 2873: 2869: 2859: 2857: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2840: 2830: 2826: 2818: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2800: 2796: 2785: 2781: 2771: 2767: 2757: 2753: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2722: 2699: 2695: 2685: 2681: 2671: 2667: 2632: 2628: 2618: 2614: 2603: 2599: 2588: 2584: 2573: 2569: 2556: 2552: 2542: 2538: 2530: 2526: 2515: 2511: 2497: 2493: 2482: 2478: 2462: 2451: 2445: 2441: 2431: 2427: 2416: 2412: 2403: 2399: 2379: 2372: 2361: 2357: 2349: 2345: 2330: 2326: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2295:Gordon v Gordon 2292: 2288: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270:CHD 24 FEB 2000 2264: 2260: 2251: 2247: 2237: 2233: 2222: 2218: 2196: 2192: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2132: 2108: 2104: 2097: 2093: 2083: 2079: 2069: 2065: 2055: 2051: 2041: 2037: 2027: 2023: 2016:Schawel v Reade 2013: 2009: 1999: 1995: 1985: 1981: 1972: 1968: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1932: 1928: 1916: 1912: 1903: 1896: 1892: 1744: 1725:False pretenses 1716: 1693:Undue influence 1681: 1675: 1618: 1612: 1553: 1547: 1507: 1454: 1320: 1311: 1298: 1253:Redgrave v Hurd 1238:Attwood v Small 1230: 1145: 1140: 1131: 1117: 1105: 1091: 1077: 1063: 1049: 1035: 1023: 1014: 1008: 1000: 992: 984: 970: 966:Redgrave v Hurd 958: 946: 934: 931: 901: 886:uberrimae fidei 853: 834: 775: 746: 717: 589:United Kingdom 552:By jurisdiction 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 3318: 3308: 3307: 3302: 3287: 3286: 3273: 3259: 3239:contract as a 3231: 3207: 3195: 3181: 3168: 3155: 3136: 3117: 3105:Alati v Kruger 3090: 3076: 3061: 3052: 3029: 3015: 3001: 2988: 2974: 2961: 2951: 2934: 2924: 2911: 2890: 2881: 2867: 2854:artslaw.com.au 2838: 2824: 2812: 2803: 2794: 2789:Smith v Hughes 2779: 2765: 2751: 2738: 2729: 2720: 2693: 2679: 2665: 2626: 2612: 2597: 2582: 2567: 2550: 2536: 2524: 2509: 2491: 2476: 2449: 2439: 2425: 2410: 2397: 2387:, (1995) 183 2370: 2355: 2343: 2324: 2309: 2300: 2286: 2272: 2258: 2245: 2231: 2216: 2190: 2166: 2148: 2139: 2130: 2102: 2091: 2077: 2063: 2049: 2035: 2030:Ecay v Godfrey 2021: 2007: 1993: 1979: 1966: 1949: 1940: 1926: 1910: 1893: 1891: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883:Contract Terms 1879: 1875: 1868: 1861: 1854: 1851: 1844: 1837: 1827: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1799: 1792: 1787:E McKendrick, 1785: 1778: 1771: 1760: 1749: 1748: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1733: 1731:Tort of deceit 1728: 1722: 1715: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1703: 1695: 1690: 1677:Main article: 1674: 1671: 1640: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1614:Main article: 1611: 1608: 1549:Main article: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1531: 1530: 1523: 1522: 1506: 1503: 1477:House of Lords 1453: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1437: 1436: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1411: 1397: 1396: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1355: 1354: 1349:is simply the 1319: 1316: 1310: 1309:Australian law 1307: 1297: 1294: 1229: 1226: 1212: 1211: 1201: 1200: 1184: 1183: 1156: 1155: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1110: 1107: 1106: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1054: 1051: 1050: 1040: 1037: 1036: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1005: 1002: 1001: 989: 986: 985: 975: 972: 971: 963: 960: 959: 951: 948: 947: 942:Carter v Boehm 939: 936: 935: 930: 929: 922: 915: 907: 900: 897: 896: 895: 881: 868: 852: 849: 848: 847: 844: 841: 833: 830: 807: 806: 799: 796: 793: 790: 774: 771: 760:or misleading 748: 747: 745: 744: 737: 730: 722: 719: 718: 716: 715: 705: 700:6 Specific to 698: 691: 680: 677: 674: 669:1 Specific to 666: 663: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 650: 645: 632: 627: 619: 618: 610: 609: 608: 607: 602: 601: 600: 595: 587: 582: 577: 572: 567: 562: 554: 553: 549: 548: 547: 546: 544:Commercial law 541: 533: 532: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 512: 503: 502: 498: 497: 496: 495: 488: 483: 478: 475:Quantum meruit 471: 463: 462: 456: 455: 454: 453: 448: 447: 446: 432: 424: 423: 417: 416: 415: 414: 409: 404: 399: 394: 389: 381: 380: 374: 373: 372: 371: 366: 361: 356: 351: 343: 342: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 323: 322: 321: 311: 310: 309: 304: 294: 293: 292: 282: 274: 273: 267: 266: 265: 264: 259: 252: 247: 242: 240:Parol evidence 234: 233: 232:Interpretation 229: 228: 227: 226: 221: 216: 211: 208:Non est factum 204: 199: 194: 189: 184: 183: 182: 177: 172: 162: 155: 154: 153: 139: 130: 125: 117: 116: 110: 109: 108: 107: 102: 97: 92: 87: 82: 77: 72: 67: 62: 57: 49: 48: 44: 43: 35: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3317: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3295: 3283: 3277: 3270: 3263: 3257:2 All ER 733. 3256: 3255: 3254:East v Maurer 3250: 3246: 3242: 3235: 3228: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3211: 3204: 3199: 3192: 3191: 3185: 3179: 3178: 3172: 3166: 3165: 3159: 3152: 3148: 3147: 3140: 3132: 3127: 3121: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100:Long v. Lloyd 3094: 3088:1950] 2 KB 86 3087: 3086: 3080: 3073: 3072: 3065: 3056: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3033: 3025: 3019: 3012: 3011: 3005: 2998: 2992: 2985: 2984: 2978: 2972: 2971: 2965: 2955: 2948: 2944: 2938: 2928: 2922: 2921: 2915: 2908: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2894: 2885: 2878: 2877: 2871: 2855: 2848: 2842: 2835: 2834: 2828: 2821: 2816: 2807: 2798: 2791: 2790: 2783: 2776: 2775: 2769: 2762: 2761: 2755: 2748: 2742: 2733: 2724: 2717: 2713: 2710:, (1972) 126 2709: 2705: 2704: 2697: 2690: 2689: 2688:Peek v Gurney 2683: 2676: 2675: 2669: 2662: 2661:Supreme Court 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2643:, (1992) 175 2642: 2638: 2637: 2630: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2609: 2608: 2601: 2594: 2593: 2586: 2579: 2578: 2571: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2554: 2547: 2546: 2540: 2533: 2528: 2521: 2520: 2513: 2506: 2503: 2502: 2495: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2473: 2472:Supreme Court 2469: 2465: 2460: 2458: 2456: 2454: 2443: 2437:Ch. 575, 584. 2436: 2435: 2429: 2421: 2420: 2414: 2406: 2401: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2375: 2367: 2366: 2359: 2352: 2347: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2328: 2321: 2320: 2313: 2304: 2297: 2296: 2290: 2282: 2276: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2255: 2249: 2242: 2241: 2235: 2228: 2227: 2220: 2213: 2209: 2206:, (1984) 156 2205: 2201: 2200: 2194: 2176: 2170: 2164: 2163: 2158: 2152: 2143: 2134: 2127: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2100: 2095: 2088: 2087: 2081: 2074: 2073: 2067: 2060: 2059: 2053: 2046: 2045: 2039: 2032: 2031: 2025: 2018: 2017: 2011: 2004: 2003: 1997: 1990: 1989: 1983: 1977: 1976: 1970: 1963: 1959: 1953: 1944: 1937: 1936: 1930: 1922: 1921: 1914: 1908: 1907: 1901: 1899: 1894: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1696: 1694: 1691: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1644: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1623: 1617: 1607: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1588: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1558: 1552: 1542: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1516: 1512: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1410: 1409: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1315: 1302: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1265: 1263: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1233: 1225: 1221: 1219: 1218: 1217:Peek v Gurney 1210: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1199: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1192: 1191: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1162: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1139: 1134: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1116: 1113: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1066: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1057:East v Maurer 1052: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1003: 999: 996: 995: 987: 983: 980: 979: 973: 968: 967: 961: 956: 955: 949: 944: 943: 937: 928: 923: 921: 916: 914: 909: 908: 905: 893: 888: 887: 882: 879: 875: 874: 869: 866: 862: 859: 858: 857: 845: 842: 839: 838: 837: 829: 827: 823: 822: 816: 812: 804: 800: 797: 794: 791: 788: 787: 786: 784: 780: 770: 766: 763: 759: 755: 743: 738: 736: 731: 729: 724: 723: 721: 720: 714: 710: 706: 703: 699: 696: 692: 689: 685: 681: 678: 675: 673:jurisdictions 672: 668: 667: 665: 664: 660: 659: 654: 651: 649: 646: 644: 640: 636: 633: 631: 628: 626: 623: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 611: 606: 605:United States 603: 599: 596: 594: 591: 590: 588: 586: 583: 581: 578: 576: 573: 571: 568: 566: 563: 561: 558: 557: 556: 555: 551: 550: 545: 542: 540: 537: 536: 535: 534: 530: 529: 522: 519: 518: 516: 513: 510: 507: 506: 505: 504: 500: 499: 494: 493: 489: 487: 484: 482: 479: 477: 476: 472: 470: 467: 466: 465: 464: 461: 458: 457: 452: 449: 445: 444:penal damages 441: 438: 437: 436: 435:Money damages 433: 431: 428: 427: 426: 425: 422: 419: 418: 413: 410: 408: 405: 403: 400: 398: 395: 393: 390: 388: 385: 384: 383: 382: 379: 376: 375: 370: 367: 365: 362: 360: 357: 355: 352: 350: 347: 346: 345: 344: 340: 339: 332: 329: 328: 327: 324: 320: 317: 316: 315: 312: 308: 305: 303: 300: 299: 298: 295: 291: 288: 287: 286: 283: 281: 278: 277: 276: 275: 272: 269: 268: 263: 260: 258: 257: 253: 251: 248: 246: 243: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 231: 230: 225: 222: 220: 217: 215: 214:Unclean hands 212: 210: 209: 205: 203: 200: 198: 195: 193: 190: 188: 185: 181: 178: 176: 175:Impossibility 173: 171: 168: 167: 166: 165:Force majeure 163: 161: 160: 156: 152: 149: 148: 147: 146:public policy 143: 140: 138: 134: 131: 129: 126: 124: 121: 120: 119: 118: 115: 112: 111: 106: 103: 101: 98: 96: 95:Consideration 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 56: 53: 52: 51: 50: 46: 45: 41: 37: 36: 33: 30: 29: 26: 22: 3300:Contract law 3276: 3268: 3262: 3252: 3234: 3226:Derry v Peek 3224: 3220:per incuriam 3218: 3217:is arguably 3214: 3210: 3202: 3198: 3188: 3184: 3175: 3171: 3162: 3158: 3144: 3139: 3126:Long v Lloyd 3125: 3120: 3115:(Australia). 3104: 3098: 3093: 3083: 3079: 3069: 3064: 3055: 3047: 3037: 3032: 3018: 3008: 3004: 2996: 2991: 2981: 2977: 2969: 2964: 2954: 2946: 2937: 2927: 2918: 2914: 2904: 2898: 2893: 2884: 2874: 2870: 2858:. Retrieved 2853: 2841: 2833:Doyle v Olby 2831: 2827: 2819: 2815: 2806: 2797: 2787: 2782: 2772: 2768: 2758: 2754: 2746: 2741: 2732: 2723: 2718:(Australia). 2701: 2696: 2686: 2682: 2672: 2668: 2652: 2634: 2629: 2619: 2615: 2605: 2600: 2590: 2585: 2575: 2570: 2557: 2553: 2543: 2539: 2531: 2527: 2517: 2512: 2499: 2494: 2483: 2479: 2463: 2442: 2432: 2428: 2417: 2413: 2404: 2400: 2395:(Australia). 2380: 2363: 2358: 2350: 2346: 2338: 2332: 2327: 2317: 2312: 2303: 2293: 2289: 2275: 2265: 2261: 2253: 2248: 2238: 2234: 2224: 2219: 2214:(Australia). 2197: 2193: 2181:. Retrieved 2169: 2160: 2151: 2142: 2133: 2128:(Australia). 2109: 2105: 2098: 2094: 2084: 2080: 2070: 2066: 2056: 2052: 2042: 2038: 2028: 2024: 2014: 2010: 2000: 1996: 1986: 1982: 1973: 1969: 1952: 1943: 1933: 1929: 1918: 1913: 1904: 1882: 1803:Contract Law 1802: 1795: 1789:Contract Law 1788: 1781: 1774: 1767: 1756: 1742:Bibliography 1720:Embezzlement 1682: 1668: 1658: 1647: 1645: 1641: 1621: 1619: 1593: 1589: 1582: 1574: 1572: 1562: 1554: 1540: 1532: 1524: 1508: 1499: 1498: 1494:contract law 1490:Lord Denning 1483: 1481: 1470: 1466:obiter dicta 1464: 1456: 1455: 1442: 1432: 1422:counterclaim 1413: 1408:Doyle v Olby 1406: 1402: 1375: 1371: 1360: 1350: 1346: 1340: 1336: 1321: 1312: 1289:Doyle v Olby 1287: 1282: 1279:Lord Denning 1268: 1266: 1251: 1249: 1242: 1236: 1234: 1231: 1222: 1215: 1213: 1208: 1202: 1197: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1159: 1157: 1152: 1146: 1128:SI 2008/1277 1097: 1083: 1069: 1055: 1041: 1029: 1006: 990: 978:Derry v Peek 976: 964: 952: 940: 884: 871: 854: 835: 819: 808: 776: 767: 753: 751: 648:Criminal law 630:Property law 585:Saudi Arabia 490: 473: 254: 206: 157: 122: 75:Posting rule 32:Contract law 25: 3305:English law 2941:Gould, N., 2920:R v Kylsant 2745:A Burrows, 2700:See, e.g., 2633:See, e.g., 2589:See, e.g., 2574:See, e.g., 2337:KB 884 the 2223:See, e.g., 1906:R v Kylsant 1780:H Collins, 1773:A Burrows, 1622:foreseeable 1318:English law 1259:Lord Jessel 1075:EWCA Civ 12 883:A contract 821:prima facie 486:Restitution 297:Arbitration 3294:Categories 3113:High Court 2716:High Court 2649:High Court 2393:High Court 2339:de minimis 2212:High Court 2162:Marleasing 2126:High Court 2120:(1919) 27 2089:A.C. 30 HL 1890:References 1885:(2007) 213 1770:(OUP 2008) 1604:rescission 1568:good title 1545:Rescission 1475:where the 1228:Inducement 1115:2005/29/EC 1061:EWCA Civ 6 1047:EWCA Civ 4 811:negligence 688:pandectist 671:common law 451:Rescission 359:Delegation 354:Assignment 142:Illegality 90:Firm offer 3193:2 QB 158] 3134:contract. 3131:Pearce LJ 2155:However, 1962:condition 1878:analysis. 1830:PS Atiyah 1820:G Treitel 1816:PS Atiyah 1753:PS Atiyah 1646:In 1991, 1581:", as in 1577:through " 1563:ab initio 1511:recission 1391:(iii) is 1275:Constable 873:bona fide 690:tradition 560:Australia 407:Deviation 314:Mediation 47:Formation 3269:Royscott 3013:Q.B. 801 2986:A.C. 465 2947:Building 2879:2 QB 297 2860:June 30, 2210:41 at , 2183:June 30, 1958:warranty 1938:1 KB 805 1810:Articles 1794:E Peel, 1764:Furmston 1714:See also 1575:affirmed 1559:and not 1557:voidable 1505:Remedies 1414:Case law 1393:reckless 1364:damages. 1361:Remedy: 1013:1 QB 525 653:Evidence 625:Tort law 598:Scotland 421:Remedies 364:Novation 187:Hardship 114:Defences 55:Capacity 2822:2 KB 86 2595:QB 801. 2005:(1861). 1697:Duress 1688:Mistake 1616:Damages 1610:Damages 1515:damages 1103:UKHL 62 1089:UKHL 10 863:have a 643:estates 575:Ireland 192:Set-off 133:Threats 128:Mistake 2777:QB 560 2489:177 PC 2157:EU Law 2075:(1976) 2061:(1951) 2047:(1957) 2033:(1947) 2019:(1913) 1991:(1965) 1630:deceit 1624:loss. 1598:, the 1579:laches 1443:Remedy 1403:Remedy 998:UKHL 4 982:UKHL 1 861:Agents 815:deceit 641:, and 639:trusts 613:Other 565:Canada 3107: 2850:(PDF) 2714:337, 2706: 2655: 2647:353, 2639: 2466: 2391:563, 2383: 2202: 2178:(PDF) 2124:133, 2112: 1600:court 1561:void 1513:, or 1425:deal. 758:false 756:is a 661:Notes 635:Wills 617:areas 580:India 442:, or 392:Cover 3241:term 3143:See 3097:See 3068:See 3050:1898 2862:2023 2786:see 2565:177. 2516:See 2507:177. 2498:See 2185:2023 1850:547, 1818:and 1461:tort 813:and 779:term 144:and 135:and 3153:86. 3124:in 3048:NLJ 2995:In 2903:or 2712:CLR 2645:CLR 2604:In 2389:CLR 2362:In 2252:In 2208:CLR 2122:CLR 2116:, [ 1917:In 1872:LQR 1867:509 1865:CLJ 1858:LQR 1848:LQR 1843:139 1841:MLR 1836:337 1826:369 1824:MLR 1488:, 1469:in 1334:). 1283:was 1235:In 615:law 3296:: 3151:KB 3149:2 3111:, 3044:AC 3042:1 2945:, 2852:. 2659:, 2563:AC 2505:AC 2487:AC 2470:, 2452:^ 2373:^ 1960:, 1897:^ 1860:60 1766:, 1755:, 1277:, 1262:MR 1193:. 1164:. 637:, 3026:. 2909:. 2864:. 2187:. 1353:. 1130:) 1126:( 926:e 919:t 912:v 894:. 805:. 741:e 734:t 727:v 23:.

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

Index