Do you get what you pay for? Reasonable non-reliance clauses defeat misrepresentation claims
One would think that a property buyer should be entitled to a remedy where a seller makes untrue misleading representations about a property, inducing a sale that would not have happened but for those representations. And yet it is also reasonable for the parties to achieve certainty by agreeing that the terms of the contract alone constitute the extent of the agreement between them.
The recent Court of Appeal case of Lloyd v Browning confirms that a seller’s liability for misrepresentation can be excluded by the terms of the contract provided that the exclusion clause is fair and reasonable in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
To sell their farm, the defendant farmers sought to make the sale more attractive by obtaining planning permission to extend an L-shaped barn into a U-shaped building that would be split into three dwellings. Planning permission for the extension was denied, but planning permission was later granted for amended plans that did not include the extension…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
A misrepresentation is a statement that induces entry into a contract and that turns out to be false.
Marshalling is an equitable remedy for achieving fairness between two or more secured creditors of the same debtor.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.
New EU rules and lawyers’ increased comfort with digital formats are sparking a sea-change in the way law firms manage their documents