Business Law for Mistake and Misrepresentation- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theBusiness Law for Mistake and Misrepresentation. Answer: Void: (D) to cancel, revoke or repeal or to treat a contract as is it never existed. Voidable: (A) can be declared void at the option of the innocent parties. Legal outcomes can be achieved until option is existed. Rescind: (C) legally non-existent. No legal outcomes are possible. A contract treated as if it never existed. Rescission :(B) to put a contract to an end such a way as to treat it as if it is never existed. In certain times, it has been observed that one party to a contract get the consent of the others by way of coercion or undue influence (Chew 2017). In this process, the aggrieved party shall have the power to cancel the contract. This is known as rescind a contract. However, the party will lose this right by way of following: If the party agrees to continue the contract even after knowing his right to rescind the contract. If the position of the aggrieved party has been lost or the subject matter of the contract has been destroyed, the party will lose the right. It is required that the aggrieved party will apply the right within appropriate time. Yhe legal remedy for misrepresentation is to make the contract voidable as per the will of the innocent party. The legal remedy of mistake is to declare the contract void at the very inception of the contract. Unilateral mistakes are such kind of mistake (Poole 2016). Equitable remedies are available for operating the conscience of the defendant and they are based on the discretion of the court (Gergen 2013). In case of mistake, the common law prescribes the remedy to revoke the contract treated as void at the beginning and in certain situation; the contract can be voidable in nature. In this case, an equitable remedy can also be claimed. Besides mistake of law and mistake of facts, mistake can be divided into three categories. They are: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake and common mistake. When one party to a contract do the mistake, it cause unilateral mistake. Caveat emptor can be a good example of it. When both the parties to the contract had caused mistake, it becomes mutual mistake. Meeting of mind plays an important role in this case. An important case in this behalf is Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864). When in a contract, both the parties do similar mistakes regarding certain facts, it will be treated as common mistake. The principle of common mistake has been proved in the case of Bell v Lever Bros. Ltd [1932]. Decision of the court of House of Lords regarding the case of Cundy v Lindsay [1877] is that no agreement had made in between the parties regarding the handkerchief and it can therefore be stated that a contract can be revoked automatically. In case of Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919], it was held by the court that a contract can only be revoked after the meeting of minds of the parties. The similarities are that both the cases are attracting the provinces of mistake and both the cases are from the English provisions of law. In both the cases, the principle regarding make the contract void have been applied. It has been held in the case of Cundy v Lindsay [1877] that when the terms of the contract are based on the fraud, there is no existence of contract in between the parties. In this case, it has been observed that Cundy has been given certain goods to the purchaser and the contract made between them is based on fraud and therefore, it is the right if Cundy to get back all the goods he delivered to the ultimate purchaser. The facts of the case are based on the principle of mistake to identity. It has been observed in the case that Phillips ran a jewellery shop and sold a ring to a person who fraudulently told a different name to Phillip and gave him a bounced cheque. After that the person pawned the ring to one Brook. The court had decided that Phillip could not retrieve the ring from Brook as he is allowed to recover the ring from that person who came to his shop only as the contract was made in between them and not with Brook. Phillip has a right to rescind the contract made between him and the person who had falsified his identity to Phillip. Phillip could rescind the contract on the basis of this. This term is used under the provision of common law. It means when a party purchased certain properties without the notice of any other partys claim to the title of that property (Harder 2014). Following are the three types of misrepresentation that are fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation. Element of fraudulent representation is to make a false statement knowingly. Element of negligent misrepresentation is failure to ensure reasonable care (Davies 2016). Element of innocent misrepresentation is when a party represent something by knowing the fact as true. Following are the three types of misrepresentation that are as follows: Fraudulent misrepresentation- Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 Negligent misrepresentation- Johnson v Chesebrough 918 Supp. 543 In fraudulent misrepresentation, a representation will be made that is needed to be false. In this case, the wrongdoer has the knowledge regarding the falsification of the matter and the intention of the defendant is to misguide the plaintiff. It is required under the law that an opinion must be made falsely. If the express of opinion is based on an honest opinion, it will not cause any misrepresentation.5. It is a fact that mere silence could not constitute misrepresentation. However, if silence occurs regarding the procession of a negotiation process, it can be accurate to make the misrepresentation. It has been observed in case Redgrave v Hurd (1881) that a contract can be rescinded even for the innocent misrepresentation. It is necessary to verify the false statement. The party can rescind the contract under the misrepresentation. Damages can also be claimed in such cases. Negligent misrepresentation. Innocent misrepresentation. Innocent negligence Issue: The main issue of the case is whether Marcel has any legal right against the written agreement or not. Rules: The case is based on the misrepresentation of fact and fraudulent misrepresentation. Application: It has been observed in the case that the car seller told Marcel to give him a high quality tyre for the car he bought. However, later it was proved that the tyres are not good. Therefore, fraud has been done by the seller. Conclusion: Marcel can sue the seller to the court under misrepresentation and claim damage from the car seller. Reference: Chew, C.Y., 2017. Mistake in its variety of forms: the injustice of giving securities supporting financial institution debts on an error of judgement or without informed consent. Davies, P.S., 2016. RESCISSION FOR MISREPRESENTATION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 75(1), pp.15-17. Gergen, M.P., 2013. Negligent misrepresentation as contract. Harder, S., 2014. Claims between a person liable for misrepresentation and the representee's contract-partner. Journal of Business Law, (2), pp.121-139. Korobkin, R., 2013. The borat problem in Negotiation: Fraud, assent, and the behavioral law and economics of standard form contracts. California Law Review, pp.51-106. Lando, H., 2016. Optimal rules of negligent misrepresentation in insurance contract law. International Review of Law and Economics, 46, pp.70-77. Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press. Smith, J.T., 2017. Cheater's Justice: Judicial Recourse for Victims of Gaming Fraud. UNLV Gaming LJ, 7, pp.61-223.