The claimant alleged that it had entered into a sub-contract relying upon misrepresentations made by the defendant, SCL that it was the main contractor, and that it was still trading. The defendant company operated through associated companies for which it was an agent, but itself was treated as dormant, even though it still put its name to invitations to tender. The claimants had undertaken credit checks before the contract the results of which were adverse.
Held: To be actionable a representation needed to be as to an existing or past fact. The filed accounts were no promise as to the future activity of the company. The claimant could have stopped work at any time, and had not continued after being misled. The company would not have acted differently if the actual position had been made clear. Claim dismissed.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Humphrey Lloyd QC
Citations:
1994 ORB 826, [1999] EWHC Technology 183
Links:
Statutes:
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(2)
Citing:
See Also – Floods of Queensferry Limited v Shand Construction Limited, Morrison Shand Limited, Morrison Construction Limited QBD 13-Feb-1997
. .
Cited – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Agency, Company, Construction
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135998