Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Contract: Misrep 1
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Dimmock v Hallett | mere puff property sale, “land fertile & improvable” D: Puff |
| J evens v merzario | - terms not misrep machinery agreed shipped in hold, containers, sunk |
| ELements of actionable misrepresentation 6 | |
| McInerny v Lloyd’s Bank | unambiguous C selling comps to custom of D. request Ds guarantee: “seller should be satisfied with arrangements” buyer defaulted. D: not guarantee, too ambiguous |
| avon insurance v swore fraser | false if Substantially correct, not false’ Rix J |
| kleinworth benson v malaysia mining | statement of fact c lent money to client based on a letter from D – “policy” |
| Pankhania v Hackney LBC | statement of law c bought car park from D on licence when actually lease D: actionable Misrepresentation; was on the legal status of property and it was wrong |
| Gordon v Selico | conduct may be fact: attempts at conealment refurbishing flat dry rot owner to builder “sort it out”, glossed it, found out D: misrepresentation covering up bad stuff |
| Spice Girls v Aprillia, | conduct may be fact Gerry told the others that she was leaving the band at a poster shoot with D. when she left, the poster had 5 members when there were actually 4 D: |
| Horsfall v Thomas | No inducement where:- Claimant DID NOT HEAR / SEE misrep |
| Bissett v Wilkinson | leymans opinion conclude farm can hold 2k sheep, buys and doesn’t hold. D: Both knew it may not hold sheep |
| Smith v Land and House Property Corp | opinion with greater knowledge C tells D very desirable tenant in hotel, not D: C had greater knowledge to D |
| esso v mardon, | expert opinion may be fact Esso told Marden expectation on gallons to sell. Esso argue opinion D: Esso are the best to know forecast. Statement of Fact. Misrep |
| Beattie v Ebury | future intention NOT fact A representation that something will be done in the future cannot be true or false the moment it’s made;” |
| wales v wadham, | future intention Mr W sue to reduce settlement. She assured never to marry again – remarries. D- change of mind valid |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | dishonest statement of intention is fact company Prospectus states “any money raised to be put expanding co & buying assets” actually used for debt |
| Keates v The Earl of Cadogan | silence is not fact rented property inhabitable C never asked for state of property. D: No duty to disclose material facts without being asked |
| sykes v taylore rose, | silence si not fact murder Victim Burried in garden. Exhumed. Dissected. Secreted around house not all recovered; D: no duty |
| Dimmock v Hallett | half truths The truth but not the whole truth… “farms all fully let” tenants had actually given notice |
| notts patent v butler | half truths |
| With v O'Flanagan | exeptioons to silence continuing representiaiona Doc Practice sold d told c its worth 2k. at time of purchase worth less D: duty to tell if facts have changed |
| Hood v Westend Motor car | exeptoins to silence |
| Locker & Woolf v West Aus Insurance, | exemptions to silence |
| Ionides v Pender, | exeptions to silence |
| Commercial banking v RH brown, | addressed to party misled DIRECTLY to Claimant INDIRECTLY to 3rd Party (must know statement will be relayed to claimant from TP |
| JEB fasteners v mark bloom, | materiality and inducement. Misrep must be AN inducement d did co. account negligently. c claimed misrep. d proved real reason for buying: interest was to get services from co’s directors through buying |
| Pan Atlantic v Pine Top Insurance | materiality and inducement |
| Smith v chadwick, | materiality and inducement Where statement IS material inducement is generally inferred |
| Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties | materiality and inducement UNLESS Def can prove Claimant was NOT induced by statement (subjective test) i.e c may have verified for themselves |
| Horsfall v Thomas | no inducement |
| Attwood v Small | Investigation: No inducement if rely on own investigation buyer of mine sent own team to investigate – assured good – not good |
| Redgrave v Hurd | Inducement and Investigation No general duty to verify statements |
| Smith v Eric S Bush | Investigation: The More commercial - the more reasonable to check (& contrib.neg if negligently checked) |
| S Pearson Son v Dublin Corp? | Investigation: If misrep is fraudulent then investigation ignored by court |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | Inducement: Misrep need not be ONLY inducement prospectus for shares- claimant partly relied on the claim |
Created by:
freckle_speckle