The Court was asked as to two quite separate issues. The first main issue relates to the requirement of inducement in a case of fraudulent misrepresentation. The questions that arise on this first issue were: ‘1) whether the normal requirement for rescission in misrepresentation cases that the representee must prove that he was induced to enter the relevant contract by the misrepresentation made by the representor is any different if the representation was made fraudulently (rather than innocently or negligently); more particularly whether the onus is on the representee to prove he was induced or on the representor to show that the representee was not so induced;
2) whether what is to be proved is (1) that the representee would not have made the relevant contract if the misrepresentation had not been made; or (2) that the representation played a part/no part of the decision to make the contract; or (3) that the representee might not have made the contract or; indeed, (4) that he would have wished to consider his position without being able to say at trial what it is that he would have done; and
3) whether, on the primary findings of fact of the judge, the right to rescind for misrepresentation was made out.
The second main issue is whether, if a contract of sale is performed partly by the seller as the contracting party and partly by a non-contractual party but with the consent of the buyer (the counter party to the contract), the contracting party can recover for both its own losses and those of the non-contracting party, in the event that the buyer, in breach of contract, refuses to perform.’
Citations:
[2019] EWCA Civ 596
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Torts – Other
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.635641