Term or representation?
- Statement made before a contract is concluded could become a
term of the contract, meaning that if it’s false there will be a breach
of contract and you can recover expectation damages, or just a
representation
- Before Hedley Byrne and the Misrepresentation Act no
damages could be recovered for misrepresentations unless
they were fraudulent, so the term/representation distinction
was really important
- It’s still significant because it affects remedies – normally you
can recover reliance damages for a misrepresentation but
expectation damages for a breach of contract
- Not always though – for breach of a contractual
warranty that a prediction has been made with
reasonable care and skill, as opposed to that it’s true,
you only get reliance damages – analogous to Hedley
Byrne liability (Esso Petroleum v Mardon)
- But under s1 of the Misrepresentation Act rescission is
available for a misrepresentation whether or not it’s
become a term of the contract
- Whether it’s a term or a representation depends on the parties’
intentions – primarily whether the party making the statement
intended it to be contractually binding or whether they just wanted
to provide information (Oscar Chess)
- This is about objective intention – what an intelligent
bystander would infer from the parties’ conduct (Dick Bentley)
- Dependent on individual circumstances, but there are some
factors which point one way or the other:
- More important statements are more likely to be
contractual terms
- Statement by a party with expert knowledge who is in a
position to check that it’s true is more likely to be a
contractual term – conversely if they don’t claim any
special knowledge and are just passing on information
from someone else it’s less likely – Dick Bentley
- Contrast outcome of Oscar Chess with Esso
- Statements recorded in writing or included in the written
contract are more likely to be terms
- Statement made at or close to the time of the contract
is more likely to be a term
- Atiyah argued that in practice the courts base their decisions
on which party they think should take responsibility for the
statement being inaccurate – parties often don’t have clear
intentions
- Probably why expertise is so important
The parol evidence rule
- Traditional parol evidence rule is that if you have a written contract
it is taken to contain all the terms of the contract and you can’t
argue there are other terms
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.