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.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
The Infrastructure Act is intended to boost investment in development projects. The practical and commercial implications of the new measures are wideranging.
In Andrew Parissis v Blair Court (St John’s Wood) Management, the judge in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) provided some useful guidance.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.