In the case presented, Pie Ltd.

, a buyer of a ‘Refrigeration Van’ sold by Cowboy

Catering, suffered loss from misrepresentation of the said object. It was well
established that during the pre-contractual negotiations of the ‘Refrigeration Van’ that
Pie Ltd’s Representative expressed his concern over three areas regarding the van,
Mainly the capacity of the van, age of the van and freezing facility. Cowboy Catering
assured 3 of the concerns specifically the capacity of the van which was said to be
able to handle five-hundred vegetable pies, the age which was verified by a third
person to be a 1995 model, and the capability of the van to freeze, which was
subsequently found out to be misrepresented. Causing Pie Ltd. to suffer loss.

In order for actionable misrepresentation to prosper, there must be the presence of

(i) false statement of the fact and (ii) Inducement. False statement of the fact, in its
general sense, is a statement of a fact that is untrue, which is relevant to the issue.
Inducement, on the other hand, is the false statement that must have induced the
buyer to enter into the contract and must, therefore, meet the requisites of (i)
Materiality and (ii)Reliance. Wherein Materiality is the misrepresentation must be
material, in the sense that it would have induced a reasonable person to enter into
the contract and reliance is the fact that the buyer relied on the misrepresentation to
enter into the contract.

In view of the concern over the capacity of the ‘Refrigeration Van.’ There was a
statement by Cowboy Catering during the pre-contractual negotiations that the van
has a capacity of 500 vegetable pies wherein fact Cowboy Catering is unfamiliar with
the capacity of the van in relation to vegetable pies. It was later discovered by Pie
Ltd. that it only has a capacity of four-hundred vegetable pies, which was a hundred
short from the representation of Cowboy Catering. In consideration of the false
statement of the capacity of Cowboy Catering and the fact that statement answered
a concern which was an inducing factor for the sale constitutes to actionable
misrepresentation.

Given that Cowboy Catering did not have knowledge of the capacity of the van in
relation to vegetable pies It should be established that Cowboy Catering made a
negligible misrepresentation. Under the Misrepresentation act of 1967, there is a
negligent misrepresentation when a statement is made carelessly or without
reasonable ground for believing its truth. The fact that Cowboy Catering carelessly
stated the capacity of the van without any reasonable ground for believing its truth
clearly constitutes a negligent misrepresentation on the fact of its first statement.

In light of the concern over the age of the van. Which was stated by Cowboy
Catering to be a 1995 model that was verified by a third person sent by Pie Ltd,
which was subsequently found out to be a 1993 model. The false statement by the
third party and the inducement due to his statement answering a concern of Pie Ltd.
gives rise to actionable misrepresentation against the third person.

Negligent Misrepresentation under Hedley Bryne vs. Heller (1964) ruled that a
plaintiff may sue a third party for negligent misrepresentation when there is a special
relationship between the parties which can be tested by reliance by the plaintiff on
the judgement of the third person, reasonable knowledge of the defendant that such
claimant would rely on defendants judgement, Reasonability of Claimant to rely on
the defendant or an assumption implicit or explicit of responsibility on behalf of the
claimant.

In the case at hand, it has passed the test for a special relationship because the fact
that the third party was sent to verify it implies that Pie Ltd would rely on the
judgement of the third party whether or not it is of the stated year. Therefore, Pie Ltd
can file a case against the third person for actionable misrepresentation. However, it
bars him from filing against Cowboy Catering, a case of actionable misrepresentation
in relation to the statement with the model of the van due to the absence of reliance
from Cowboy Catering’s Statement.

Moreover, the third statement of Cowboy Catering over the freezing capability of the
van that was claimed to be able to freeze. Shall constitute actionable
misrepresentation, due to the fact that the statement of its freezing capability was
untrue and the inducing factor of that misrepresentation to the sale. The fact that
Cowboy Catering logically assumed that if the van could refrigerate, then, therefore,
it can freeze gives rise to a reasonable ground to believe that it is true. It can be
logically assumed by a person with no real knowledge of motor vehicles that if a van
can refrigerate it can also freeze. It shall give rise to an actionable misrepresentation
in the form of a wholly innocent misrepresentation for such statement was stated
with reasonable grounds believing it to be true for he did not have any real
knowledge of motor vehicles.

In sum, due to the number of actionable misrepresentations over the case remedies
available for Pie Ltd are rescission against Cowboy Catering for the Negligent
Misrepresentation of the Capacity of the Van and Damages for the loss of £500
worth of vegetable pies due to the Innocent misrepresentation of the Freezing
Facility of the Refrigeration van. Pie Ltd also has a claim for damages against the
third person who verified the age of the van, which Pie Ltd reasonably relied on. The
damages should incur the price loss of the payment he made for a 1995 model,
which was actually a 1993 model. The fact that the statements of the
misrepresentation do not appear in writing does not bar Pie Ltd from actionable
misrepresentation against Cowboy Catering and the third party as such
misrepresentation can be in writing, orally, or by implied conduct.