n Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council (1999) Mistake of law could lead to an action for restitution of money paid. Principle applied to misrepresentation in: Pankhania v Hackney LBC (2002) Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV (2000)- The fact that members of the Spice Girls Group took part in the filming of a commercial for Aprilia, knowing at the time that one member of the group intended to leave, as she did shortly after the contract had been signed, amounted to misrepresentation by conduct. No general duty to disclose information- Turner v Green (1895) Exceptions: n Only half the truth told - Dimmock v Hallett (1866); Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Co v Butler (1866) Situation has changed - With v O'Flanagan (1936) Contracts uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) - e.g insurance contracts - Lambert v Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd (1975); Woolcutt v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd (1978) The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012- section 2- consumers do not have to volunteer material facts, but must take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer. Insurance Act 2015- non-consumer insurance contracts. Businesses have a duty to make a fair representation of risk. JEB Fasteners Ltd v Bloom (1983); Atwood v Small (1838) - But it need not be the only factor influencing the claimant - Edgington v Fitzmaurice. Failing to make inquiries or check-over documents will not prevent a claim - Redgrave v Hurd (1881) Reliance does not have to be based on proof that the representation was believed to be true- Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Plc (2016) UKSC 48 Misrepresentation deals with pre-contractual statements which induce a contract. It has to be a statement of fact or law. Misrepresentation can occur by conduct. Generally, silence will not amount to misrepresentation. > Tort of deceit. Lord Herschell- Derry v Peek (1889)- it must be proven that the false representation was made knowingly, or without belief in its truth or recklessly, careless as to whether it is true or false. Negligence is not sufficient, there has to be an element of dishonesty. This is provided for under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Where a false statement is made, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that there were reasonable grounds for believing that statement to be true. If the defendant is unable to show reasonable grounds, negligence will be assumed. Here, the misrepresentation is neither fraudulent nor negligent. >The party has made a statement with an honest belief in its truth and had reasonable grounds for that belief. Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964). A special (or fiduciary) relationship of trust and confidence must exist.
The party making the statement/providing advice/information has voluntarily assumed the risk. There has been reliance on the statement etc. Such reliance was reasonable. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (1990). Common law and Equity Rescission Damages Indemnity } Statute - Misrepresentation Act 1967 >Damages