A common law remedy which can be sought where a person has signed a document believing it to be something fundamentally different from what it really is
An equitable remedy which can be sought where the wording of a contract contains a genuine mistake
Jim Jam Ltd has a website on which it sells toys. A toy which should have been priced at £39.99 is priced at £3.99 by mistake. What case could Jim Jam rely on in order to argue that any contracts made by customers for purchase of the toy are void for mistake ?
Hartog v Colin & Shields
Cundy v Lindsay
Bell v Lever Brothers
Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris
Jim Jam agrees to buy some electronic toys from Far Eastern Monkey Business Ltd. It entered into the contract on the understanding that the toys came with instructions translated into English. In fact, they are in Chinese. What sort of mistake is this ?
Mistake as to quality of subject matter
Mistake as to identity
Mistake as to terms
Mistake as to existence of subject matter
Would the mistake in question 3 be serious enough to render the contract void ?
Yes, because it is obviously crucial that the instructions should be in English obtaining a warranty about the instructions being in English
b) Yes, because Far Eastern Monkey Business must have been aware that the instructions needed to be in English
No, because there is nothing wrong with the toy itself and Jim Jam could easily have protected itself by
Which of the following best defines a negligent misrepresentation:
A statement made without regard for its truth
A statement which the maker knew was false
The maker of the statement cannot show that (a) he believed it was true; and (b) he had reasonable grounds for such belief
A statement made carelessly i.e. where the maker did not comply with the required standard
Which of the following is NOT a requirement when seeking to establish liability for misrepresentation?
a) The representation was one of fact, not opinion
The representation was false
The person making the representation had no reasonable grounds for belief in its accuracy
The injured party believed the representation was true
The representation induced a contract
If the buyer of a business commissions an expert report on the business, can it rely on a misrepresentation by the seller on the same subject?
Probably not, because it is likely to have relied on the expert report, not the seller’s statement
Yes, the buyer is entitled to rely on the seller’s representation regardless of what other information it has been given the opportunity to see
Probably, as long as there is no express clause in the sale agreement requiring the buyer to commission an expert report
What case would you cite in support of your answer to question 7?
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
Redgrave v Hurd
Attwood v Small
Bissett v Wilkinson
Which of the following cases concerns change of circumstance and misrepresentation by conduct?