CA: Court of Appeal considered whether a disclaimer contained in a footnote to special conditions of sale was effective to exclude liability, having regard to the provisions of section 3 of the 1967 Act. P claimed that the footnote was a statement of opinion and not a representation. CA dismissed this claim, saying that the distinction was false.
Bridge LJ: “For my part the distinction seems to be one without a difference. The word 'representation' is an extremely wide term; I cannot see why one should not be making a representation when giving information or when stating one's opinion or belief. To my mind it would be a retrograde step if the court were to give the word 'representation' when it appears in the Misrepresentation Act 1967 any narrow or limited construction, less wide than the perfectly natural meaning of the word.” However, he also said that the court are unwilling to “allow such ingenuity of language to defeat the plain purpose at which s.3 is aimed”.