1. Types of misrepresentation
   1. Fraudulent
   2. Negligent
   3. Innocent
   4. Statutory
2. Pre contractual misrepresentation may give rise to
   1. • Right at common law or action in equity to rescind the contract
   2. • Action for damages in the tort of deceit
   3. • An action for damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s2(1)
   4. • Action for damages in tort of negligence and/or
   5. • Action for damages for breach of contract
3. For rescission, damages in deceit, or under the 1967 Act, the misrepresentation...
   1. 1. Must be of past or present fact or law (not opinion, belief, or intention)
      1. Bisset v Wilkinson- honestly mistaken statement by farm owner about potential sheep carrying capacity. Held as both buyer and seller equally unaware of sheep carrying capacity it was only a statement of opinion (although usually representations by farm owner about capacity would be treated as fact)
      2. Smith v Land- hotel purchased on reliance of statement about "most desirable tenant", did not pay rent. Held misrepresentation of fact, tenant could not reasonably be so described
      3. Edgington v Fitzmaurice- company made statements about the purpose of a loan (building works, developing trade etc). loan actually used to pay off existing loans. Held misrepresentation of fact (rather than of intention as D argued)
      4. Pankhania v Hackney Borough Council- establishes misrepresentation of law can be actionable
   2. 2. May be express, or arise from silence or conduct.
      1. Keates v The Earl of Cadogan- uninhabitable house leased knowingly to someone who wanted to live there, no warning.
      2. With v O’Flanagan- continuing representation- a statement that was true at time of making, but that became false, was a misrepresentation
      3. Dimmock v Hallett
      4. Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service- conduct can be misrepresentation
   3. 3. Must be false
   4. 4. The content/meaning of a representation is determined objectively, ie what a reasonable person would have understood from the representor’s words and/or conduct, in their context : IFE Fund SA v Goldman Sachs
4. Fraud/Dishonesty
   1. needed for
      1. damage in tort of deceit
      2. right to rescind at common law
      3. (not for recission in equity/damages under MA)
   2. Intention to induce normally needed (no requirement of materiality)
      1. Edgington v Fitzmaurice- action in tort of deceit. LJ Bowen
      2. Zurich Insurance- recission for fraudulent misrep
      3. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG- intention that misrepresentation would be acted on applies equally under MA
5. Inducement- in order to be actionable, a misrep. must induce a party to enter into contract
   1. Materiality- capacity of a statement to affect the mind of a reasonable representee (objective)
      1. Redgrave v Hurd- material misrep about money brought in by solicitor's practice. Burden on proof on representor to show it had not been relied on
      2. Edington v Fitzmaurice- LJ Bowen described materiality as meaning "actively present to the mind" of the Pl
   2. Reliance/inducement- whether statement did in fact play a "real and substantial" part in decision to enter contract (subjective)
      1. Pan Atlantic Ins Co Ltd v Pine Top: it can be presumed where a statement is likely to induce the contract, it did in fact induce
      2. Raiffeisen- proposes a but for test to establish reliance (high bar)- this is problematic and hard to reconile with Museprime
   3. Museprime: burden of proof
      1. if misrep is material- burden on representor to show representee did not rely
      2. if not material, burden on representee to show they did rely
   4. required in all fraudulent misrepresentation actions, and damages under MA
6. Negligent misstatement (tort)
   1. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller- establishes that duty of care can arise in regard to the making of statements
   2. Caparo v Dickman- limitation- duty of care not extended to cover use of accounts for which they were not in fact provided
   3. McCullough v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd: incorrect details of property given by representor
   4. Requirements
      1. Misstatement should have caused loss to the person who relied upon it
      2. And should have been negligently made
      3. no need to be proven false
      4. not limited to material statements
      5. not limited to statements of fact
      6. does not lead to conclusion of contract