MISREPRESENTATION 1&2 (PARAGRAPH 1) A misrepresentation is a false pre-contractual statement that induces a party to enter a contract. In this scenario, Ben could be charged under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 for stating a false statement that induces Bill into entering a contract. The first requirement that needs to be considered if the false statement was made by one contracting party to the other. Normally if a third party is involved then there is likely to not be an effect on the contract. In this case, Ben told Bill that the land is "uncommonly fertile", handing him the yield records for the last five years which, he said, support this assertion. Ben is the contractor who sold and enforced a contract with Bill. it turns out that the document stated that the land was barely average in terms of yield. Bill did not read this and took Bens word for it. Furthermore, another requirement to establish whether there was a misrepresentation is, whether the statement was of fact or law, not intention or opinion. In this case ... The issue that arose was that Bill bought farmland from Ben and Ben told Bill that the land is "uncommonly fertile" however, the land then proved to be "totally unsuitable for farming" and this can be seen as misrepresentation. Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 misrepresentation is defined as a false statement of fact or law, made by one contracting party to another , which induces the other party to enter the contract. With Bens statement of the land being "uncommonly fertile" which Ben later supported his assertion by the "yield records" therefore, this would be a statement of fact which fulfills the basic requirements under misrepresentation. Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a false statement is made, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant (Ben) to show that there was reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. If the defendant is unable to show reasonable grounds, negligent misrepresentation will be assumed. Furthermore, the third basic requirement is fulfilled which states that the statement must have induced the other party to enter into the contract. Following Ben's statement and the "yield document" Ben agreed to "have the land". However, Bill did not read the document and therefore, did not know that the land was barely average in terms of yield. Therefore, it could be argued that this is not misrepresentation as it is merely Bills fault for not reading the documents and therefore, he is liable for his wrongdoings thus, it could be argued there are no remedies nor any claims against ben. However, this notion of failure to check over documents was further explored in the case of Redgrave v Hurd [1881] in which the court found that the defendant was not under a duty to inspect the papers and that his reliance on the plaintiff's misrepresentation was enough and thus, a failure to make inquiries or check over documents will not prevent a claim and therefore, Bill will