A contract is only valid if all parties agree to the terms. A person misrepresents if they make a false statement of fact that induces someone into a contract. In this scenario, the seller misrepresented the condition of the car. Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a party makes a purposeful misrepresentation so that the buyer enters into a contract to purchase.
Damages may still separately be available for non-innocent misrepresentation under s. In doing so it clarified conflicting case-law in the lower courts.
However, it is for the representor in such a case to prove that justice requires that he should be compensated for any depreciation or use of an asset acquired as a result of the misrepresentation.
In this case, rescission of a contract for the sale of a car was permitted, even though the claimant had not sought to rescind until more than three years after it had been purchased. Numerous defects began to emerge after Mr Salt purchased the car.
Although Stratstone repaired some of the issues, by September Mr Salt had had enough and tried to return the car to Stratstone.
Stratstone refused to reimburse him and in MarchMr Salt issued proceedings, arguing that the car was not of merchantable quality and seeking damages. While it had not had a registered owner previously, it had had a number of repairs prior to its sale to Mr Salt and had been involved in a collision serious enough to warrant significant repairs to its wheels.
On discovering this, Mr Salt amended his particulars of claim in May to plead misrepresentation and seek rescission. The County Court judge ruled that rescission was impossible because the parties could not be returned to their original positions, due to the fact that the car had now been registered so could not be returned unregisteredthere had been a significant lapse in time since it was purchased and the judge could not calculate due to lack of evidence the amount repayable for depreciation in value of the car.
The appeal judge reversed the decision, holding that it was possible to restore the parties to their original positions and therefore ordered rescission of the contract and Stratstone to repay the purchase price in return for the car.
The remedy of damages in lieu of rescission in section 2 2 of the Act could only arise if it was still possible to rescind the contract, thereby clarifying an area where there had been conflicting case-law.
The first instance judge was wrong to decide that rescission had become impossible. Registration of the car did not alter the car itself — if this would bar rescission a car buyer could never rely on the remedy following a misrepresentation.
Similarly, the fact that Mr Salt obtained some, albeit limited and intermittent, enjoyment from the car did not make rescission impossible.
The Court said that: It was not inequitable to allow rescission, as the elapsed time was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Comment This case provides welcome clarity on when damages is available in lieu of rescission under section 2 2 of the Act and a useful reminder that rescission should be the normal remedy for misrepresentation.
One of the issues considered by the Court of Appeal was whether a claimant could and should have a wider remedy under the Act — where rescission is available — than may be the case under the Sale of Goods legislation, where the right to return goods is limited.
The Court considered that earlier case-law prior to the Act coming into force which suggested the two should be aligned may not be good law. As Mr Justice Roth noted in his supporting judgment, the remedies available in the context of supply of goods to consumers will soon radically change when the Consumer Rights Act comes into force.Like fraud, the court can remedy misrepresentation by voiding the contract and returning any property or money back to the parties.
Misrepresentation can also be remedied by awarding compensatory. § Misrepresentation and scheme or device. (a) In addition to other penalties, sanctions, or remedies as may apply, an asparagus producer will be ineligible to receive assistance through the Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment Program if the asparagus producer is determined by CCC to have.
Feb 23, · Pension misrepresentation claims against Canadian employers and actuarial firms are on the rise. Rare until recently, the full exposure posed by such claims remains unknown, because few cases have yet come to trial.
Any employer with a pension plan may be sitting on time-bomb of . § Inaccurate representation, misrepresentation, and scheme or device. (3) Misrepresented any fact affecting an ARC or PLC Program contract, CTAP application, or determination made under part of this chapter; or (4) Violated or been determined ineligible under § of this chapter.
Claims for misrepresentation: interpretation of section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act (“the Act”) and awards for damages in lieu of rescission * Court of Appeal clarifies approach to.
Recent securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country include complaints alleging misrepresentation regarding Wells Fargo & Co.’s cross-selling performance metric, the clinical study results for a Parkinson’s disease drug and the involvement of poultry-processing companies in a price-fixing scheme in the broiler chicken market.