Mistake vs. Misrepresentation

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

            A misrepresentation is a statement made that is not unified with the truth. There are two categories that misrepresentation can fall under: either innocent or fraudulent. When a misrepresentation is innocent it was made not intentionally to deceive the other party. A fraudulent misrepresentation is made with the intent to deceive with knowledge that it is false. Tommy wants to pursue legal action against Royal 16 Theater on the basis that they conducted fraudulent misrepresentation.

It was decided that if the “representor gave information-or advice which was negligent he would be liable for any pecuniary or personal damage-caused”5. However the appeal was dismissed due to the fact that with “the absence of a contract or fiduciary relationship” the defendant that used a disclaimer would owe no duty of care.6 The case was significant in that claims on negligent misstatement could work if; there is a special affiliation among parties, the information provided by a party has a voluntary assumed risk, the plaintiff has to deem the information reliable, and finally the reliability of the information must be applicable. 

A lie is an inaccurate statement to convey a false impression. A person tells an average of at least 2 lies per day. A lie can cause happiness but can also cause multiple tragedies in many different lives. The person telling the lie is not the only one being affected, many other people can get involved and their lives will be changed forever. Arthur Miller's classic The Crucible is written upon all different types of lying, and how a single lie can cause tragedies to many people.

Makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry;

This is when a trader made a false statement of a product or service but believed that the statement was true. Example of this would be a trader saying that the phone is water proof but it real isn’t. this would be deliberately done, so to make it fair the court would say the contract would have to be

An mistake of fact is said to be made when a person understands the facts to be other than they are "A mistake sufficient to vacate a dismissal may be found where a party, under some erroneous conviction, does an act he would not do but for the erroneous conviction. . (H. D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin, (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1357, 1368.)

I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, and I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular.

A misrepresentation is a statement or a claim made by one to another that can either be misleading or false. This can happen not only is written contracts or contracts but also verbally, it can be as simple as when a person is talking to another and has provided them with information that is incorrect. For a business it is illegal or unlawful to be involved or make any statements in matters that can be mislead or misinformed or is likely to be mislead or misinformed to its customers or other businesses. The following can be classified as being misleading, the failure to disclose relevant information, predictions, opinions and promises. The conducts for the misleading or miss informing whether by action or statement includes advertising, any form of statements, promotions, quotations and by any representation made by a person.2 A form of misleading information or deceptiveness can be in the form

Misleading is giving a wrong impression or lead toward a wrong conclusion, especially by intentionally deceiving. In this article, the author Casey Junkins talk about the disappointment of students being misled and convinced the West Virginia Business College they attend, will remain open.

Deception is the mindful, intentional act of communicating information (or intentionally not sharing information) that the sender knows to be false, nonetheless the sender is attempting to create a false impression within the mind of the receiver. There has been debate within the research community of the types of deception, however, for

To lie by omission is another way some people choose to tell a lie. To lie by omission means to intentionally omit a vital piece or pieces of information leaving the other person with a misconception. For instance, a wife asks her husband if he were at the night club, the husband tells his wife that he is working late, which is true, however, he omit’s the fact that he also visited the night club. Lying by omission undermines the truth. It is often used to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the deceiver. The lie is not the words or lack of words; the omission is the intention of the deceiver. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre- existing misconceptions.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,