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:
Misrepresentation
Different remedy for different falseness
When false statement which induces contract is a term within the contract
Term = enforceable undertaking to do something
When term is breached remedies available are:
Specific performance (if sought and appropriate)
Damages which put C in position as if contract performed.
Termination if sufficiently serious
When false statement which induces contract is a representation about something outside of the contract
Representation = statement which asserts truth of given state of facts and invites reliance on it
Without giving an enforceable guarantee of its truth
Remedies available:
Rescind Contract
Claim damages to put C in position as if C had not relied on the statement’s truthfulness (i.e. not entered the contract)
Why this can make a difference
Rescinding a contract or claiming damages to “undo” the effect of contract
is useful if you’ve made a bad bargain
Thus you’d try and claim the false statement is a representation about something outside the contract
Whereas being able to claim your expectation interest
Or have opportunity to request specific performance
Is better if you’ve made a good bargain
Thus you’d try and claim (first and foremost) the false statement is a term of the contract rather than a representation.
How to distinguish between a term and a representation
Intention of Parties manifested by their words and conduct
Heilbut, Symons and Co v Buckleton:
Importance of truth of statement to the representee
More important, more likely term
Whether speaker had special knowledge
More specialist knowledge, more likely a term
Whether innocent party was asked to verify the truth
If asked to verify, more likely representation
Whether speaker initiated false statement or merely passed it on
If not first “false speaker” then less likely term
Whether statement was formally recorded
If recorded, more likely term (parole evidence rule) (although statement outside of document can be classed as collateral term)
Requirements for Misrepresentation
1. Unambiguous, false statement
Of existing fact
Can be made by words or conduct
Of intention that is in fact
dishonest
Mere statement of intention, if honest, is not actionable
Wales v Wadham [1977]:
Even if D then fails to act on his intention – he is entitled to change his mind
If D states an intention and in fact intends to do something else, however
Edington v Fitzmaurice [1885]: D, directors of a company, sent shareholders prospectus inviting subscription for bonds to buy vans. C read prospectus and mistakenly thought would be given charge of company property, so bought some bonds. D only wished to improve cash flow.
Bowen LJ
State of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion.
Therefore, misrepresentation as to the state of a man's mind is a misstatement of fact.
OR a term of the contract
Of opinion that is
Dishonest
Asserting an opinion that is not genuinely held
Is an assertion of existing fact (“I hold this opinion”)
That is in fact false (cos you don’t actually hold it)
OR Unreasonable
Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884): D, landlord selling flats to C, describes tenant as “most desirable” when in fact tenant an arse who doesn’t pay rent. C later sues.
Bowen LJ:
Where facts known by both parties equally
what one of them says to the other is frequently nothing but an expression of opinion.
And mere opinion is not actionable
But if the facts are not equally known to both sides,
then a statement of opinion by one who knows facts best can involve a statement of a material fact,
for he impliedly states that he knows facts which reasonably justify his opinion.
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927]: C, knowing no better than D, advised that land not used for sheep before could potentially hold 2000 sheep. C turned out to be wrong.
Lord Merrivale
In these cases, things to consider are:
the material facts of the transaction,
the knowledge of the parties respectively and their relative positions,
and the actual condition of the subject-matter spoken of,
which will lead to conclusion whether opinion honestly and reasonably held.
OR a term of the contract
Or “Puffs” (vague and exaggerated laudatory statements about contract subject matter) which
Are specific enough in the context to constitute a contractual term
Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Machine [1893]:
SEE CONTRACT WK 1
Chen Wishart: Arguably s.2(1) of Misrepresentation Act will include statements of intent, opinion and puffs as actionable UNLESS D can prove the expression was HONEST – whereas under common law, C must still prove...
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