Miral Hasan

Answer: (Q3)
Misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made by
one party in order to induce the other party to enter a binding contract.
In this question, we have to advise advice Marcella regarding the
possible damages she might have to pay. Hence, we will test to see
whether the statements made by Marcella are actionable.
Marcella claims that the car is ‘the most reliable car on the road’. This
statement is not actionable as it is an exaggerated statement, hence a
merepuff. A merepuff is not actionable as can be seen in the case of
Dimmock v Hallet. For a statement to be actionable, it must be a
statement of fact or law, rather than a statement of opinion.
Upon Sanjit’s enquiry about the car’s age, she informs him that it is
‘brand new’. However, within a few weeks of purchasing the car, Sanjit
discovers that the car is 80 years old.
This statement may be actionable as it is a false statement of fact.
The general rule in this regard is when a misrepresentation is made by
one party, it is presumed that the misrepresentation must have
induced the claimant to enter the contract and must be one of the
reasons even if not the sole reason why the other party entered the
contract, as established in the case of Edgington v Fitzmaurice.
However, there are certain exceptions that can rebut this presumption.
Firstly, if the representee was unaware of the truth of his/her
statement.
Secondly, if the claimant relied on some other inducement, as
demonstrated in Attwood v Small.
Thirdly, if the representee was unaware of the misrepresentation, as
seen in Horsfall v Thomas.
Fourthly, if the representee would have entered the contract despite
being aware of the falsehood of the statement, as established in the
case of Atlantic lines.
In this case, Marcella can try to rebut this presumption by claiming that
the registration plate indicated that the car was older than she stated it
was, and Sanjit did not fully rely on her statement. However, this
argument would be rejected because although Sanjit suspected that he
had been lied to, he was not completely sure as the registration plate
was only a subtle indication of the falsehood of the statement.
Therefore, Marcella’s statement is actionable and claim to damages
may be brought.
There are four types of misrepresentation, the first one being
‘fraudulent misrepresentation’, which is the tort of deceit as
established in Derry v Peek, secondly there’s ‘Statutory
misrepresentation’ under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, third being
‘Negligence at common law’ under Hedley Byrne v Heller, and the
fourth one being ‘Innocent misrepresentation’, as seen in William
Sindall v Cambridgeshire.
In this case, this was a negligent misrepresentation under the
Misrepresentation Act 1967 as Marcilla’s lack of fluency was the
negligence which led her to believe that the car was actually brand
new.
The categories for remedy are Rescission and Damages, depending on
the type of misrepresentation. Rescission means that the contract is set
aside and any goods or money exchanged must be returned. Rescission
does not take place in scenarios where the claimant was already aware
of the misrepresentation before signing the contract as seen in Long v
Lloyd, where there is a significant time lapse between the making of
contract and the claim of misrepresentation, like in Leaf v international
Galleries, where restitution is impossible for example in Clarke v
Dickinson, and where recission would infringe the rights of a third
party.
Conclusively, Marcella is liable to pay all damages to Sanjit under Tort
of Deceit or under Misrepresentation Act s2(1), as she is liable for
Negligent Misrepresentation.

Answer: (Q2)
An offer is a statement by one party exhibiting the desire to enter a
contract on stated terms. An invitation to treat is an expression of
willingness to enter into a negotiation. This is not an offer.
Lady Amity placed an advertisement in a newspaper asking for tenders,
giving a time lapse till 1st February. A bilateral advertisement is
generally an invitation to treat, as established in Partridge v Crittenden.
The general rule established in Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust
Co of Canada Ltd is that a request for tender is an invitiation to treat,
whereas a tender is an offer. Therefore, inherently, the responses
received from Brash and Clarissa would be considered offers, rather
than acceptances. However, the case of Blackpool v Blackpool provides
an exception to this rule, which is that an invitation to tender may
involve an implied undertaking to consider all conforming tenders,
especially if a specific time frame was specified in which tenders could
be brought in. Hence, this could be ascertained as a unilateral contract
in which all tenders will be considered unconditionally, provided they
are brought forward within the said time frame. This can be seen inn
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.
On 5th February, Lady Amity receives an email from Devi, in which she
expresses interest to buy her hotel, but does not commit to buying it as
she states that she will do a profitability survey first. As the stated time
period is over, Devi’s response will not be considered an acceptance to
what may be considered a unilateral offer. Although Devi shows
interest in buying Lady Amity’s property, her statements cannot be
concluded to be an offer as she does not confirm whether she will buy
the hotel.
A separate contract is concluded between Lady Amity and Devi, as Devi
offers her a consideration of £1000, in exchange of a promise that Lady
Amity will not sell her hotel to anyone else till 1st March, which she
accepts. On 18th February, Lady Amity receives a call from Frederick,
who offers her £11 million. Lady Amity accepts the offer. Lady Amity
can be sued for breach of contract, under Routledge v Grant, as she
cannot legally sell her hotel to anyone else till the time lapse.
Although, Lady Amity accepts Frederick’s offer, the general rule is that
acceptance must be communicated for the contract to be
communicated. Although the acceptance was communicated but it
wasn’t heard by Frederick due to car noise, therefore the contract
cannot be concluded under Entores v Miles Far East.
Lady Amity may accept Frederick’s new offer after 1st March, in order to
prevent liability in respect to Devi. However, Frederick revoked his
initial offer before acceptance was communicated to him, therefore
there is no contract between Frederick and Lady Amity for now under
Payne v Cave.
Answer: (Q1)
A consideration is an inducement given to enter into a contract that is
sufficient to render the promise enforceable in the courts.
No consideration has been provided by Rusty to Larry in advance,
hence no contract was concluded between them, under Stilk v Myrick.
Therefore, Rusty cannot sue Larry for breach of contract as Larry only
made a verbal promise, which wasn’t binding.
Coco makes an offer to Pete to paint the Big Top for 2500, to which
Pete agrees, therefore a contract was concluded. There was a legal
intent to enter the contract by both parties, as Coco needed his work
done and had promised a certain amount of money whereas Pete had
begun doing the job. Pete then asks for 800 more as he cannot
complete the task alone and needs someone to assist him, to which
Coco reluctantly agrees. However, no consideration was given by Pete.
Therefore there is no binding contract between Coco and Pete under
the case of Dunlop v Selfridge and Coco is not liable to pay Pete 800
pounds.
Under Hartley v Posonby, the contract between Zara and Coco is
binding as although no consideration was provided but her task
exceeded her contractual duty, therefore Coco is liable to fulfil his
promise and increase her salary, otherwise she can sue him in court.