In looking at the case, the defendant clearly has not committed any misrepresentation with regards to the agreement with the claimant. Before the signing of the contract, the defendant has already stated that “with some modernization,” the turnover rate should be about £50,000. Based on the said statement of the defendant, it is clear that what she said is merely an opinion. According to the case of [1927] AC 177 a statement of opinion by the defendant is not a misrepresentation of fact if it turned out to be false eventually.  The defendant even asked the claimant to look into the figures which could have explained the reason of claiming of the professed turnover rate. When the claimant deferred this opportunity, it clearly implies that the claimant is not induced by the £50,000 rate.


Moreover, upon reviewing the set of circumstances present in the case, it appears that the claimant was going to enter the contract regardless of the claim of the lofty turnover rate. This means that the defendant was not induced into entering the contract using the claimed misrepresentation. ( [1990] 36 EG 114) Therefore, the claimant basically relied on his own decision and observations on the said agreement. ( (1838) 6 CI & F 232) With this argument, it is thus established that the claimant has entered the agreement in his own accord without the inducement from the part of the defendant. Thus, misrepresentation never took place.


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top