The claimant sought damages, alleging misrepresentation.
Held: Damages under section 2(1) of the 1967 Act are assessed on the fraud measure. The court drew a distinction between a factor which is observed or considered by a plaintiff, or even supports or encourages his decision, and a factor which is sufficiently important to be called a real and substantial part of what induced him to enter into a transaction. The latter can establish a causative link between a negligent misstatement and loss, but the former will not do so. Rix J said: ‘a representation may be true without being entirely correct, provided it is substantially correct and the difference between what is represented and what is actually correct would not have been likely to induce a reasonable person in the position of the claimants to enter into the contracts.’ The answer only needs to have been given in good faith i.e. honestly.
Judges:
Rix J
Citations:
[2000] Lloyd’s LR IR 535, [2000] 1 ALL ER Comm 573
Statutes:
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346905