The Elements Required For Fraudulent Misrepresentation And If They Are Present

            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.

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

For purposes of the Statement, fraud is an intentional act that results in a material

u. P2) This implies that the seller who intends to enter a contract with a customer has a duty to disclose exactly what the customer is buying and what the terms of the sale are.

fraudulent representation, identity of the person making the representation and what was obtained as a result of the fraudulent act or representations.

W.F. Yost made a statement to Rieve Enterprises, Inc. that misrepresented the actual condition of Red Barn restaurant. Yost had been cited for health code violations in the past, which he did not disclose to Rieve. Instead Yost warranted that “the premises will pass all inspections.” After the purchase of the restaurant by Rieve, two weeks later the restaurant was cited for health code violations and the restaurant was closed. Therefore I believe the statement Yost made was a fraudulent misrepresentation because, according to the book “When fraudulent misrepresentation is used to induce another to enter into a contract, the innocent party’s assent to the contract is not genuine, and the contract is voidable by the innocent party”

There is no general definition of good faith under English contract law; it is generally a presumption that two parties will act honestly and fairly with one another. Unlike other systems of law, such as the French Civil Code, English contract law does not recognise the obligation of ‘good faith’. Instead there is more of a negative obligation not to tell lies rather than a positive obligation to tell the truth and act in good faith. However recent cases such as Yam Seng PTE Ltd v International Trade Corporation Limited have shown that the courts attitudes towards good faith have been developing and changing. Now it may be possible to imply a term of good faith in a contract. Therefore, where traditionally there has been a negative obligation not to tell lies, English contract law may be slowly moving towards an obligation of good faith.

The plaintiff, during the signing of the contract, acted in a fraudulent manner. He took advantage of the defendant’s excitement to offer the product at exorbitant amounts. He did not clearly explain to them what the terms they had agreed to implied. Courts have not shied away from invalidating contracts when it becomes apparent that one party benefitted unfairly at the end of the stipulated term. This position was held in the case of Derby v. Derby. In this case, the court argued that Mrs. Derby had used fraudulent means to ensure that Mr. Derby signed the legal documents that conveyed the property to her. Mrs. Derby had failed to explain to Mr. Derby what the documents represented, and their effect. Also, Mr. Derby had acted on misinformed belief that Mrs. Derby would return home if he (Mr. Derby signed the documents. The court ruled for Mr. Derby. This is a similar situation that the defendants, in this case, find them in. The plaintiff, while presenting the contract to them to sign, failed to explain to them the effect (Roos, 2012). Because the effect brought about gross disparity, the contract qualifies to be termed as being

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

Issue: Does seller have a duty to disclose any facts that materially affect the value of a property?

The Texas Seller Disclosure states that a seller is under the duty to disclose material facts that would no be discovered by the normal care and diligence of the purchaser. It further states that a normal investigation or inquiry should not disclose any material facts about a property, but the seller has no reason to disclose facts that he or she does not know.

Cases under unilateral mistake can be divided into three categories: Firstly mistaken identity, secondly mistake as to the terms of a contract and thirdly mistake as to the nature of a document signed. The main focus in this discussion is mistaken identity, where one party is mistaken as to the identity of another. Mistaken identity may happen in two different

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.

Cases of false affirmation occurred where the buyer was convinced to buy something by the false statements of the seller;

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.