GDL Law Notes GDL Contract Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
RULE | CASE | EXCEPTION | CASE |
| DERRY V PEEK A false representation is made:
One of these must be proven in order for there to be fraud. THOMAS WITTER V TPB INDUSTRIES Definition of reckless: a disregard for the truth…where the defendant has shut his eyes to the facts, or purposely abstained from enquiring into them. | ||
| S PEARSON V DUBLIN CORP | ||
| BANKS V COX Deliberate failure to inform prospective purchasers of change in the social services budget, which would impact the nursing home business. HELD: Deliberate nature of the failure to disclose change in circumstances meant that the misrepresentation was dishonest and therefore fraudulent. ERLSON PRECISION HOLDINGS LTD V HAMPSON INDUSTRIES LTD Forecasts provided to a potential buyer of shares over a ten-month negotiation period included details of contracts with the company’s second biggest customer. This customer had terminated its supply arrangement a few month after the initial supply arrangement (making the business unsaleable), but was still included in the proceeding forecasts – CEO aware of this but did not correct forecasts. HELD: CEO ought to have corrected details of the forecasts. Failure to do so constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. | ||
REMEDY 1: RESCISSION IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF MISREPRESENTATION – SEE BLOW. | |||
REMEDY 2: DAMAGES Representee may sue for damages in an action for the tort of deceit.
| DOYLE V OLBY C purchased an ironmonger’s business from D. Prior to sale, D produced accounts which showed considerable annual profits. C was told that all trade was done over the counter. D also promised not to engage in similar business within a 10-mile radius. C found out the turnover had been misrepresented, half of the trade was done with the director’s brother acting as a part-time traveller and an associated company began to canvass the vendor’s former customers. HELD: Fraudulent misrepresentation – C awarded damages for all losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation, regardless of foreseeability. NEW SMITH COURT V SCRIMGEOUR VICKERS | ||
Not on contractual measure but on tortious measure of what C would have made if the contract never happened.
| EAST V MAURER C bought a hairdressing salon from D. D had another salon on the same road but said he would not work at the other salon – untrue. As a result, C was unable to make a profit – clients moved to other salon. HELD: C awarded for loss, not on the basis of what he would have made if contract was properly enforced (contractual measure) but on what he would have made if the contract had never happened and he had instead bought a similar salon in a similar town (tortious measure). CLEF AQUITAINE SARL V LAPORTE MATERIALS LTD |
| DOWNS V CHAPPELLE C bought a bookshop from D based on a misrepresentation its turnover and profits. Bookshop had been making a profit, but not enough to support C’s borrowing liabilities. Had to sell for a lot less than they had bought the shop for and claimed for their loss. HELD: Loss was irrevocable because C had made a profit. |
| STANDARD CHARTERED BANKING V PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING | ||
REMEDY 3: INDEMNITY | |||
INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION | |||
| |||
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION | |||
| |||
| HOWARD MARINE AND DREDGING CO V OGDEN & SONS LTD D hired two barges from C. C told D that the barges’ capacity was 1600 tonnes, but it was actually 1550 tonnes. Figure was derived from Lloyd’s Shipping Register, but was wrong. CA HELD:... |
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Contract Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
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 Started