Redgrave v Hurd

Last updated

Redgrave v Hurd
Court Court of Appeal
Decided28 November 1881
Citation(s)(1881) 20 Ch D 1
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jessel MR Baggallay LJ and Lush LJ
Keywords
Misrepresentation, rescission, reliance

Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.

Contents

Facts

Mr Redgrave, an elderly solicitor, advertised for a partner to join the business and buy the accompanying house. He said in an interview with Mr Hurd that the practice brought in £300 a year, when it was only £200 a year. Mr Redgrave showed him summaries that came to a £200 a year average income and said that the rest of the £300 figure was borne out by other papers in the office that he could check (in fact they showed no business). Mr Hurd did not inspect the papers, until he realised the truth just before completion of the agreement. He had signed the contract but he refused to go through. Mr Redgrave sued for specific performance and Mr Hurd counterclaimed for rescission based on fraudulent misrepresentation.

Fry J held that because Mr Hurd had not taken the opportunity to check through the papers, he could not be taken to have relied on them. Mr Hurd appealed.

Judgment

Sir George Jessel MR held that Mr Hurd’s counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation failed because there was no plea that Mr Redgrave knew his statements were untrue. Therefore, there was no entitlement to damages. Nevertheless, Fry J’s decision was reversed, and the contract was rescinded on grounds of innocent misrepresentation. He held that relying on the representation was enough and there was no duty to inspect the papers. For rescission, he noted the difference of law (knowledge was necessary) and equity, where the approach was ‘A man is not to be allowed to say… that when he made it he did not know it to be false; he ought to have found that out before he made it’ and ‘no man ought to seek to take advantage of his own false statements’. If a man is induced to enter a contract by a false representation it is not a sufficient answer to him to say, ‘If you had used due diligence you would have found out that the statement was untrue. You had the means afforded you of discovering its falsity, and did not choose to avail yourself of them... If it is a material representation calculated to induce him to enter into the contract, it is an inference of law that he was induced by the representation to enter into it’ and so it is for the person alleging otherwise to show it.

Baggallay and Lush LJJ concurred.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

    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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Rescission (contract law)</span> Remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract

    In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract.

    <i>Derry v Peek</i>

    Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Baggallay</span> British politician

    Sir Richard Baggallay PC was a British barrister, politician, and judge. After serving as Attorney-General under Benjamin Disraeli from 1874 to 1875, Baggallay was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in Chancery, serving until his death in 1883.

    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

    <i>Leaf v International Galleries</i> 1950n English contract law case

    Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation, mistake and breach of contract, and the limits to the equitable remedy of rescission.

    <i>Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson</i>

    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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation Act 1967</span> United Kingdom legislation

    The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which amended the common law principles of misrepresentation. Prior to the Act, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in respect of each of the three categories.

    <i>Gordon v Selico</i>

    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.

    <i>Smith v Land and House Property Corp</i>

    Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) LR 28 Ch D 7 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of opinion can represent that one knows certain facts, and therefore one may have still made a misrepresentation.

    <i>Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon</i>

    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.

    <i>With v OFlanagan</i>

    With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that there is a duty to disclose material changes in circumstances that were represented to be true in negotiations.

    <i>Whittington v Seale-Hayne</i>

    Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It holds that indemnities can be claimed under English law for any consequential costs of a contract not turning on an innocent misrepresentation.

    <i>Clarke v Dickson</i>

    Clarke v Dickson (1858) EB & E 148 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It stands as an example of the restrictive approach common law courts took to rescission for misrepresentation before the leading case of Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co held only substantial counter restitution was needed.

    <i>Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell</i>

    Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It holds that an unequivocal act communicating the wish to rescind a contract can override third party rights. The communication does not need to go to the misrepresentor.

    <i>Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd</i>

    Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd [2000] EWHC 221 (Comm) is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.

    Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries [1996] 2 All ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Doubt has been cast in its decision as to availability of rescission by Floods of Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd and Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd.

    <i>Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd</i>

    Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law case, concerning the difference between a representation and a contract term.

    <i>Solle v Butcher</i>

    Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said,

    ... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.

    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.