In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from the intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.
Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases. It is referred to as honest comment in some countries.
Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case, given by the House of Lords on misrepresentation and contractual terms. It held that a non-fraudulent misrepresentation gave no right to damages. This was decided decades before Hedley Byrne v Heller, where damages for negligent misrepresentation were introduced in English law, and, thus, it would today be regarded as wrongly decided under the tort of negligent misrepresentation.
Wilkinson v Downton[1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is an English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. At the time, this was not covered under the law of negligence.
Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".
The tort of deceit is a type of legal injury that occurs when a person intentionally and knowingly deceives another person into an action that damages them. Specifically, deceit requires that the tortfeasor
Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."
Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 is an English tort law and contract law case, heard by the House of Lords. First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement. Second, it concerned the reasonableness of a term excluding liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 2(2) and s 11.
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 is an English tort law case on negligent misstatement.
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson[1991] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case on misrepresentation. It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation.
Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 is a leading English tort law case concerning professional negligence and the conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. It confirmed it extended to unequivocal professional advice.
The Royal Mail Case or R v Kylsant & Otrs was a noted English criminal case in 1931. The director of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, Lord Kylsant, had falsified a trading prospectus with the aid of the company accountant to make it look as if the company was profitable and to entice potential investors. Following an independent audit instigated by HM Treasury, Kylsant and Harold John Morland, the company auditor, were arrested and charged with falsifying both the trading prospectus and company records and accounts. Although they were acquitted of falsifying records and accounts, Kylsant was found guilty of falsifying the trading prospectus and sentenced to twelve months in prison. The company was then liquidated, and reconstituted as The Royal Mail Lines Ltd with the backing of the British government.
Gordon v Selico (1986) 18 H.L.R. 219 is an English contract law on the subject of misrepresentation by action. It was held that positive actions - in this case, the concealment of dry rot - could amount to operative misrepresentations.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] EWCA Civ 4 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that the divide between a statement of opinion and fact becomes more factual if one holds himself out as having expert knowledge.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence.
East v Maurer [1990] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation.
Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It explains the test of "reasonable grounds for belief" under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1), and raises the issue of the reasonableness test under s 3.
