Hey guys,
I have a Master's Degree in law and an LPC. Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law and whilst it can be used in consumer law, it is quite wrong for Which to say it only applies in consumer law. Misrepresentation also applies to commercial contracts.
The Wikipedia article is better - Misrepresentation - Wikipedia
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 does not create the concept of Misrepresentation in contract law, it only modifies it. It is mainly used because of its provisions on damages. It basically says if someone makes an innocent misrepresentation but cannot prove they had reasonable grounds to make it then damages will be calculated as though it was a deliberate fraud.
s2 Damages for misrepresentation.
"(1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true."
I have a Master's Degree in law and an LPC. Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law and whilst it can be used in consumer law, it is quite wrong for Which to say it only applies in consumer law. Misrepresentation also applies to commercial contracts.
The Wikipedia article is better - Misrepresentation - Wikipedia
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 does not create the concept of Misrepresentation in contract law, it only modifies it. It is mainly used because of its provisions on damages. It basically says if someone makes an innocent misrepresentation but cannot prove they had reasonable grounds to make it then damages will be calculated as though it was a deliberate fraud.
s2 Damages for misrepresentation.
"(1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true."
Comment