Chris And Angela

In order to advice Chris and Angela, it is necessary to consider the law relating to misrepresentation. We will analyse the situation to see what laws are applicable and advise Chris and Angela. When Chris and Angela have bought the house, they signed a written contract. In this written contract, the terms have to be contained into. If David’s statements are not in the contract, it is only representations. The statements were not in the written and signed document, so they are not a term. Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. It needs not to be intentionally false to create liability.

1. Misrepresentations

In this case all of the statement are an oral contract. “It is much harder to tell a term from a representation”. (Business
The gas central heating system must be replaced, and it will cost £6,000. This statement is a fraudulent misrepresentation; because Chris knew it was a false representation, and it is made with knowledge is false. David knowing it was false, and he lied to Chris and Angela. In this case, the innocent party, Chris and Angela, is entitled to rescind the contract and have some damages. The authority for that is: (Derry v Peek [1889]).

- David told Chris and Angela the neighbourhood was very quiet, and he “barely knew they were there”. After they move up, Chris and Angela discover that their neighbours were very noisy. They are a party with less knowledge, so it is likely to make representations. This is a wholly innocent misrepresentation; David can say that he believing the statement was true.

- Concerning the area, Chris and Angela, who just were potential buyers, didn’t have the knowledge for the future development of the area. As David said ‘in my opinion”, it is a statement of opinion. A statement of opinion is not a misrepresentation. This statement, which not represents risk for Chris and Angela, pushes them to buy the house. David gave his opinion, and Chris and Angela decided to believe him, without seek to know if it was true or not. The authority for that are: (Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] ; Smith v Land ans House Property Corp [1884]).

2.
Misrepresentations are civil offenses. The remedy for negligent misrepresentation is that of rescission. The court will act like the contract never existed. If Chris can prove that he actually believed that his statement was true, the misrepresentation will be a wholly innocent misrepresentation. Otherwise, it is a negligent misrepresentation. Royscott Trust v Rogerson confirmed in case of tortious damages, remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation is also available for negligent misrepresentation. Chris and Angela can ask damages for this misrepresentation to justice. (Royscott Trust v Rogerson [1991])

- In the case concerning the new gas, the misrepresentation is a fraudulent misrepresentation. David knew that the gas central had to be changed, even if he said that he changed the central. Fraudulent misrepresentation is the most difficult to prove. In this case, Chris and Angela can sue and have damages for tort of deceit. The representee will be entitled to a remedy in equity for the fraudulent misrepresentation, and to recover damages in tort for deceit in respect of the fraud. (Doyle v Olby [1969] ; Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers