Misrepresentation

A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party that affects the other party's choice to enter into a contract.

If the fraud is discovered, the agreement can be declared invalid. In addition, the individual who has suffered harm may seek damages depending on the situation.

The party making a claim in this contract dispute is known as the plaintiff, and the party accused of making it is known as the defendant.

It is a false or deceptive statement of truth made by one party to another during negotiations in a common law jurisdiction with the intent to induce the other party to enter into a contract.

Typically, the misled party has the right to cancel the agreement and, on rare occasions, may even be granted damages.

With common law, equity, and statute serving as its primary sources, the law described by this concept is a combination of tort and contract law. The Misrepresentation Act of 1967 altered common law in England and Wales.

The U.S. and other former British colonies, including India, have adopted the broad tenets of it.

A pre-contractual declaration made during talks is referred to as a representation. However, if a model is a contract term, the ordinary remedies for breach of contract apply.

The following elements affect whether a representation has turned into a term:

• The parties' relative levels of knowledge

• The amount of faith one party has placed in the assertion

• Affirmations made by the speaker

• The in-demand trade's conventional practices

• A collateral contract is built based on representation.

If not, there may be a claim for it and possible claims for negligence and fraud. Even though a lawsuit for breach of contract is quite simple, filing a companion lawsuit has benefits.

A repudiation is only an option when a condition has been violated. In contrast, rescission is intrinsically accessible for all misrepresentations, subject to the limitations of Section 2 of the Act of 1967 and the inherent limitations of an equitable remedy.

Nature of Misrepresentation

This can occur in many real-world situations, referring to their different natures. Usually, nature defines the laws of how to behave for relative parties in such a process.

The legal term for any false statement or omission affects how a contractor or other party acts.

Contrary to common belief, which dismisses the idea of unintended omissions or careless statements, the term can also relate to unintentional omissions or wild claims made without having a complete understanding of the situation.

It has four basic natures to refer to:

1. Material Misrepresentation

If the entire truth has been known already, but there is a promise, an omission, or a false statement of information that would induce another person to behave differently, this situation can be defined as a material one.

Typically, it largely entails providing inaccurate information about one's salary on a mortgage application or omitting crucial risk factors on an insurance application. However, other cases, including economic material, can also be defined similarly.

2. In Insurance

A misrepresentation in the insurance industry is a deception or concealment of facts that, if discovered by the insurer, can nullify an insurance contract.

What would happen if a homeowner constructs a pool but informs the insurer that they don't have one? The insurer can void the contract when they are aware of this fact.

3. In Real Estate

In real estate, a misrepresentation is defined as a lie or a deliberate fabrication that would influence the market value of a house or other property.

An everyday example of this is a property's square footage. A buyer may occasionally file a lawsuit for square footage even after a completed transaction because sales prices frequently depend on it.

Types

It usually comes in three different types:

1. Negligent

Negligent misrepresentation is when the defendant makes a claim without making any effort to confirm its accuracy before entering into a contract.

This goes against the need for a party to use "reasonable care" before making an agreement. Contract termination and financial compensation are the punishments for willful deception.

2. Innocent

Innocent ones were not harmed by the defendant's fabrication of an untrue material truth when the contract was executed. The usual course of action in this situation is to rescind or cancel the contract.

3. Fraudulent 

When the defendant makes a false statement intentionally or knows that it was false to induce the other party to engage in a contract.

The affected party has the right to ask the defendant to cancel the contract and pay damages.

The plaintiff must overcome six legal obstacles before they may pursue damages claims as a result of it. First, the claimant must supply evidence of the following:

• A grievance was voiced.

• The statement wasn't accurate.

• The defendant either knew the statement was inaccurate at the time it was made or made it carelessly while unaware of its validity.

• The representation is what the plaintiff relies on.

• Situation that the plaintiff utilized false representation.

• A situation that the plaintiff relied on the false statement.

All six conditions must be satisfied for a plaintiff to succeed in a case for representation. In one of these circumstances, the defendant is not required to refute each of these allegations.

For example, an aviation manufacturing company sells newly produced aircraft to airlines. However, there is a problem with the aircraft's transmission, which the aviation manufacturing company fully knows.

However, in all advertisements the company sent, this new aircraft is announced in perfect mechanical condition. In the real world, this can be called a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Duties of the Parties

The following conditions must be met for a misrepresentation, particularly a negligent one.

There must be an affirmative obligation to ascertain and communicate the truth to the other party to the contract. If they fail to do so, there would be an ultimate injury for both parties in this process.

Once it happens, the parties involved in such a situation should take responsibility according to the law. 

In English contract law, there is no general duty of disclosure. Hence there is typically no requirement to disclose anything. Moreover, normal contracts do not need to be made in "good faith" per se; merely following the law is sufficient.

However, in certain circumstances, silence could serve as the foundation for it, which is actionable.

Agents and their principals are in a fiduciary relationship. Therefore, they must disclose everything properly and refrain from making illicit gains.

Employers and employees have legal obligations to one another once the contract of employment has been created; however, a job applicant is not required to divulge anything during a job interview.

Contracts deemed to have been made in "utmost good faith" include insurance contracts, commercial partnerships, and familiar agreements.

When an insurance proposal is issued, all pertinent information must be supplied for the insurer to properly examine the risk. The U.K.'s Insurance Act of 2015 made substantial changes to the information disclosure requirements for the insurance sector.

In some circumstances, such as those involving a fiduciary relationship, it can happen via omission. In other words, it may occur if a fiduciary with knowledge of significant facts fail to disclose them.

Any statements made as the fact that later turn out to be false must be corrected. It would be the failure to retract earlier incorrect information in this case.

in U.S. Law

It often calls for false remarks to be spread without the victim of the claimed consent. Words and images are interpreted in the publication's context and by conventions.

A group of people is only misrepresented when all group members are mentioned, especially if the group is tiny or when specific individuals are blamed.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that there must be proof of real malice in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, defined as "Knowing that the statement was incorrect or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Although slander and libel share the fundamentals, classifications are crucial since they give rise to distinct liabilities.

These discrepancies typically reflect a policy that holds individuals less strictly to what they write than to what they say to deter frivolous lawsuits and an approach that preserves the written word's legitimacy by enforcing harsher sanctions.

Additionally, the law acknowledges that written ones are more harmful than oral words.

Both civil and criminal laws provide sanctions. However, for anything to be legally punished, it must be such that it would cause a disturbance or otherwise directly jeopardize the public interest.

Normally, everyone who participated in a defamatory message and whose involvement had anything to do with its substance is held accountable.

As a result, editors, managers, and even owners are accountable for defamatory publications even though suppliers and distributors are not.

In the United States, a legal privilege stemming from a special connection or position absolves someone of liability. For instance, senators in the United States are not subject to legal action for whatever they say in the Senate.

The idea of "fair comment," a common-law permission to criticize and remark on subjects of public interest, grants the mass media extensive latitude in some cases. 

However, such criticism must relate to a person's job and not to their private affairs and must be factually correct.

A Case Study

In Donohoe v. Donohoe, the defendant Donohoe was unequivocally ruled entirely fraudulent as he:

• Knows the statement to be untrue.

• Does not believe in the report.

• It is reckless as to its veracity.

This three-part test defines fraudulent misrepresentation.

The deceived party may withdraw and demand damages for all directly resulting losses, according to Olby v. Doyle in 1969.

All such losses are recoverable, and the fraudulent person does not have the right to claim that they were not reasonably expected. 

For instance, in this specific scenario, Doyle has suffered loss and expense while attempting to operate a firm that has turned out to be a disaster for him. 

He spent money on the business, something he would never have done if there hadn't been a fraud. He lost all of that money on investments. He is entitled to compensation for all his losses only after considering any benefits he may have obtained.

In the 2009 lawsuit between Fitzroy Robinson Ltd. and Mentmore Towers Ltd., a statement was found to be false and deceptively conveyed.

A named employee who had been proposed by the developer Fitzroy Robinson as the team leader for the development project for Mentmore Towers left the organization.

The court agreed with Mentmore Towers' counterclaim that the developer's failure to warn the client before contract signing rendered the failure to disclose this information false.

The judge found that they had misrepresented their position to prevent the potential situation that the client would back out of the transaction.

Under Section 2. (1), "Belief on reasonable grounds up until the moment of the contract that the facts represented are truthful" is the definition of innocence. Therefore, the misled party is exempt from paying damages due to their innocence.

Instead of rescinding the contract, the court may "declare the contract subsisting" and grant damages. In contrast, the victim of a warranty violation in a contract may seek compensation for their losses but may not revoke the agreement.

Reviewed & edited by Purva Arora | LinkedIn

Free Resources 

To continue learning and advancing your career, check out these additional helpful WSO resources:

• Anti-Dilution Adjustment Clause
• Capital Raising Process
• Definitive Purchase Agreement
• Documentary Collection
• Merger vs Acquisitions