The claimant had licensed the defendant to use its trademarks in connection with the naming of their hotels in Germany. The defendants failed to pay their fees as agreed, the claimants terminated the license and now sought payment under the termination provisions. The defendants alleged misrepresentation saying that they had agreed the fee after being told incorrectly that no lower rates were accepted from other franchisees.
Held: The defendants had not established that the representations had been made. The sums claimed were due and payable.
 EWHC 2317 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA 1956
The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases.
Held: The standard was the balance of . .
Cited – Grace Shipping v CF Sharp and Co (Malaya) Pte Ltd PC 10-Dec-1986
(Singapore) When a court has to weigh the various and varying recollections of witnesses about what was said at meetings which occurred in the distant past, the surest guides are the contemporaneous documents and the overall probabilities.
Lord . .
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 . .
Cited – S Pearson and Son Ltd v Dublin Corporation HL 1907
A clause in a building contract provided that the contractor should satisfy himself as to the dimensions, levels and nature of all existing works. Did this exclude an action based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the council’s engineers . .
Cited – Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2000
In a contract for the purchase of airplanes, the plaintiff claimed misrepresentation, and as a result, rescission and damages. The issue was whether, once the right to rescind had been lost, any claim for damages had also lapsed under section 2(2). . .
Preferred – E A Grimstead and Son Limited v Francis McGarrigan CA 13-Oct-1998
Cited – The Ikarian Reefer CA 1995
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When . .
Cited – Deepak Fertilisers v ICI Chemicals CA 1991
P’s methanol plant had been constructed with the use of know-how and services supplied by D. Following completion the plant exploded. The plaintiff sued D for negligence and breach of contract. The plaintiff had undertaken to indemnify D against . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.245096