Supreme Court decision on misrepresentation during pre-contract negotiations
In a significant decision by the Supreme Court, a representor has been held liable for its negligent misrepresentation to another party other than the party that was later induced to conclude the contract.
A negligent misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A that induces Party B to enter into a contract that causes him loss. The negligent misrepresentation can be express or implied and must have continuing effect until the time the contract is concluded. This means that there is a continuing duty on the representor if he realises the inaccuracy of his innocent misrepresentation to disclose it or be liable for damages.
A principal can be liable for the fraudulent misrepresentation of his agent should the agent induce the representee into concluding a contract with the agent on behalf of the principal, even if the agency commenced after the misrepresentation was made (as long as the misrepresentation is continuing after the agent’s appointment and until conclusion of the contract)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
The courts have decided a number of high-profile cases this summer in which retailers have been involved in intellectual property disputes.
Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Armour is a tenancy repossession case in which the tenant invoked a successful article 8 defence.
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