E-SEMINAR MASTER DOCUMENT Seminar Topic: Misrepresentation Group Names; Hannah Moore, Bronwyn Sellick, Sam Moncur, Harriet Kennedy. Date: 28/01/2019 (IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES) The Legal issues in the scenario are: Misrepresentation - Afalsestatement of factor law,made by one contracting party to another, which induces the other party to enter into the contract. Basic Requirements - False statement must have been made by one contracting party to the other. - It must be a statement of fact or law, not intention or opinion. - The statement must have induced the other party to enter into the contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation: This is established when a person makes a false statement which he knows is not true and has no belief in its truth or which he makes recklessly not caring whether it is true or not. Case of Derryt v Peek (1889). Negligent Misrepresentation: A negligent misrepresentation is established when a person makes a false statement, which they may honestly believe to be true, but without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. Section 2 (1) Misrepresentation Act 1967. Section 2 (1) Misrepresentation Act 1967: A (EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES) The relevant and important principles and cases are: Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 - Statement of fact or law, not intention or opinion - A statement about the number of sheep a piece of grazing land would support was held to be a statement of opinion. - It was held that the statement was an honest statement of his opinion and that there was no actionable misrepresentation. The claimant purchased a piece of farm land to use as a sheep farm. He asked the seller how many sheep the land would hold. The seller had not used it as a sheep farm but estimated that it would carry 2,000 sheep. In reliance of this statement the claimant purchased the land. The estimate turned out to be wrong and the claimant brought an action for misrepresentation. The Privy Council held that the statement was only a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact and therefore not an actionable misrepresentation. The claimant's action was therefore unsuccessful.
Whether a statement is one of fact or opinion for the purposes of rescinding a contract Dimmock v Hallett [1866] LR 2 Ch App 21 Dimmock v Hallett [1866] LR 2 Ch App 21 - Exception of no general duty to disclose information - only half the truth told - Hallett won a bid at an auction for a piece of land, only to later discover that it was not "very fertile and improbable", as described in the sales particulars. Sued on the grounds of misrepresentation. - The court held that the description was a "mere flourishing description", and Hallett should not have taken it as a positive representation of fact. - Therefore, it can be seen that a mere 'puff' or 'flourishment' does not give rise to legal rights if or when they prove to be inaccurate. demonstrates 'puffing' statements,