Misrepresentation in English Law and Mere General Statement
Silence does not amount to misrepresentation, how if, it is to a known defects? Discuss by using case law to support your answer.
Misrepresentation is defined as a false statement of existing facts or laws, which materially induces the misled party to enter into the contract. This is a pre-contractual statement, which is not part of the contract. However, these non-contractual statements can be classified as mere puffs (sales talk) or misrepresentations.
For a misrepresentation to be actionable, the statement alleged to be a misrepresentation must be a statement of material fact but not mere opinion. For instance, in Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 where a representation as to the number of sheep that land could support was not based on any expert knowledge in this field but was merely an opinion and ironically the land had never been used for sheep farming. Thus, it cannot be considered as an actionable misrepresentation. Besides that, in the case of Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885), the directors of the company owed serious debts and for the sake of settling the huge debts, they had misinterpreted their intentions initially when they borrowed money and representing that they would use the loan to enhance the company’s building but that was not the case. The court then held this as false statement of material fact. The misrepresent statements can be considered as “mere puffs” as they are mere boasts and they attach no weight but they can also rely upon actionable misrepresentation provided that they profess to contain factual information.
In addition, the statement alleged to be a misrepresentation must have been addressed to the party misled excluding intervention from the third party. To justify this statement, in the case of Peyman v Lanjani 1985, the defendant took the lease of the premise and bound by the agreement requiring the landlord’s permission. Later when the defendant decided to sell the lease on to the claimant and again this would
Misrepresentation is defined as a false statement of existing facts or laws, which materially induces the misled party to enter into the contract. This is a pre-contractual statement, which is not part of the contract. However, these non-contractual statements can be classified as mere puffs (sales talk) or misrepresentations.
For a misrepresentation to be actionable, the statement alleged to be a misrepresentation must be a statement of material fact but not mere opinion. For instance, in Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 where a representation as to the number of sheep that land could support was not based on any expert knowledge in this field but was merely an opinion and ironically the land had never been used for sheep farming. Thus, it cannot be considered as an actionable misrepresentation. Besides that, in the case of Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885), the directors of the company owed serious debts and for the sake of settling the huge debts, they had misinterpreted their intentions initially when they borrowed money and representing that they would use the loan to enhance the company’s building but that was not the case. The court then held this as false statement of material fact. The misrepresent statements can be considered as “mere puffs” as they are mere boasts and they attach no weight but they can also rely upon actionable misrepresentation provided that they profess to contain factual information.
In addition, the statement alleged to be a misrepresentation must have been addressed to the party misled excluding intervention from the third party. To justify this statement, in the case of Peyman v Lanjani 1985, the defendant took the lease of the premise and bound by the agreement requiring the landlord’s permission. Later when the defendant decided to sell the lease on to the claimant and again this would