Plaintiff bought bonds in a company based on false statements as to what the money would be spent on (company claimed it was for developing the business whereas in fact it was to meet existing debt payments) and as a result, when the company collapsed, he got very little return on the investment.
He sued Defendant (officers of the company. CA allowed his claim, since he was induced to pay for bonds based on the fraudulent misrepresentation as to the purpose of the money raised.
It was material that the money was used for a purpose other than that claimed since a man who lends money “reasonably wishes to know for what purpose it is borrowed” and obviously if Plaintiff had known the truth he would not have invested it.
It didn’t matter that there was another issue (charge on the property) which was critical but “it was not necessary to show that the misstatement was the sole cause of his acting as he did” and it was irrelevant that he was also influenced by another factor.
A misstatement is material if it was “actively present in his mind” when he decided to pay the money.
The state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion.
These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrase...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Misrepresentation Notes (24 pages) |
Contract Law | Misrepresentation Notes (15 pages) |
Commercial Remedies BCL | Smith New Court Securities V. Vickers Notes (3 pages) |