Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB contract law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Contract Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
I - Requirements of Misrepresentation 3
A – Representation and Terms 4
1/ Remedial significance of the distinction 4
2/ Criteria for the distinction 4
a/ Based on the intention of the parties as objectively manifested by their words and conduct 4
b/ The more important the statement to the representee, the more likely it is a term. 4
*Dick Bentley v Harold Smith [1965] 1 WLR 623 5
*Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370 5
d/ Unlikely to be a term if the maker requests C to verify 5
e/ Unlikely to be a term if the maker merely passes on false information initiated by another 5
Heilbut Symons v Buckleton [1913] AC 30 5
B – The actionable statement 5
1/ Statements of fact or law 6
*Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 6
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 6
a/ Extending the catchment of actionable misrepresentation 7
With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 7
b/ Exceptions based on special relationships imposing a duty to disclose 7
c/ Indirect techniques for giving relief 7
*Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 8
*Hayward v Zurich Insurance [2016] UKSC 48 esp. at [18] - [19], [58] - [72] 8
II – Remedies for misrepresentation 9
II.A - Rescission for Misrepresentation 10
Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49 10
*Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 11
1/ Incorporation as term no longer a bar to rescission 11
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 12
5/ Impossibility of mutual restitution 12
*Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire CC [1994] 3 All ER 932 12
II.B - Damages for Misrepresentation 12
A – Common Law Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) 12
*Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 13
Doyle v Olby [1969] 2 QB 158 13
*Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] AC 254 13
East v Maurer [1991] 1 WLR 461 13
B – Common law Negligent misrepresentation (under tort of negligence) 14
*Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 14
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 14
A – Damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 14
Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 745 15
D – No liability for (purely) innocent misrepresentations 16
II.C – Damages in lieu of rescission (s2(2)) 16
II.D – Other Monetary Remedies 16
IV - Exclusion of Liability for Misrepresentation 16
*JP Morgan v Springwell [2010] EWCA Civ 121, paras 127-187 (Aikens LJ) 17
AXA Sun Life Services v Campbell Martin [2011] EWCA Civ 133 17
VI - Consumer “Rights to redress” 17
For rescission:
An unambiguous false statement of existing fact
Made to C
Which induces C to enter the contract
For damages, the above, plus:
Requisite state of mind (not an honest misrepresentation on reasonable grounds)
1/ Remedial significance of the distinction
If it is a term that is breached, the innocent party can claim damages aimed at putting him in the position if contract had been performed or specific performance or termination if breach is sufficiently serious.
If it is an actionable representation then the innocent party can rescind and/or claim damages aimed at putting him in the position if not contracted.
Sometimes C can show that it is both a misrepresentation and a term (s1(a) Misrepresentation Act1) so can rely on either set of remedies – C may prefer misrepresentation if:
C cannot meet the threshold for termination (serious breach) but can for rescission (any misrepresentation)
C made a bad bargain so would prefer for damages to “go backwards”, though s2(2) allows the courts to deny rescission for equitable considerations
2/ Criteria for the distinction
a/ Based on the intention of the parties as objectively manifested by their words and conduct
Authorities: Heilbut, Oscar Chess.
But usually the parties son’t intend anything… so…
b/ The more important the statement to the representee, the more likely it is a term.
In Bannerman v White the statement that goods didn’t have sulphur made after the buyer said that he wouldn’t even bother asking for the price if it did have sulpher was a term.
c/ More likely a term if D has special knowledge or skill in the subject matter, or in a better position to ascertain the accuracy
*Dick Bentley v Harold Smith [1965] 1 WLR 623
Facts: a car dealer made a false statement to a private buyer about the mileage of the car. It was a term because the dealer was “in a position to know, or at least find out the history of the car”, and thus stated a fact that should be within his own knowledge.
*Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB contract law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Contract Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...
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