|Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries|
|Citation(s)|| 2 All ER 573|
Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries  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 Ltdand Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd .
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, and to a lesser extent the United States. It is also experiencing gradual change because of the UK's membership of the European Union and international organisations like Unidroit. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. Because a contract is a voluntary obligation, in contrast to paying compensation for a tort and restitution to reverse unjust enrichment, English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court.
Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd  EWHC 221 (Comm) is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.
In December 1989, D, a conglomerate negotiated the sale of a carpet company to P. In the course of so doing D negligently misrepresented that there was a special one off expense of GBP 120,000 in accounts produced, and that those accounts spread the bi-annual expense of producing pattern books over two years instead of immediately writing it off. The sale contract included a provision stating that P acknowledged it had not been induced to enter into the agreement by any representation or warranty, and a contractual limitation clause that D was not liable for a breach of the agreement unless written notice was given by January 1, 1992. When P sued for negligent misrepresentation, D sought to rely on those two contractual provisions.
Jacob J held rescission was no longer available where it was impossible to restore the parties to their positions before the contract. He referred to the Solicitor General while the Act was being passed, however, saying that damages could be awarded where rescission was no longer available, and so under s 2(2) the right to damages did not depend on the right to rescission - it was only necessary that the right to rescind had existed in the past - even if there was a bar now.
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
A concept of English law, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party into the contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract, or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton  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 some time before Hedley Byrne v Heller, where damages for negligent misrepresentation were introduced in English law, and it would today be regarded as wrongly decided.
Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.
A contract is a legally-binding agreement which recognises and governs the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement. A contract is legally enforceable because it meets the requirements and approval of the law. An agreement typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or promises of any of those. In the event of breach of contract, the law awards the injured party access to legal remedies such as damages and cancellation.
Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.
Leaf v International Galleries  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.
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 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.
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218 is a landmark English contract law, restitution and UK company law case. It concerned rescission for misrepresentation and how the impossibility of counter restitution may be a bar to rescission. It is also an important illustration of how promoters of a company stand in a fiduciary relationship to subscribers.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts.
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.
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.
In English law, a vitiating factor in the common law of contract is a factor that can affect the validity of a contract. The concept has been adopted in other common law jurisdictions, including the USA.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon  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.
William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council  EWCA Civ 14 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It concerns the exercise of discretion under s 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967.
South African contract law is ‘essentially a modernised version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract’, which is itself rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.
Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd is a leading Canadian property law case concerning commercial landlord-tenant relationships decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.