edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1
Table of Cases 2
Introduction 3
The Facts: - 3
Misrepresentation 3
Remedies for Misrepresentation 4
The Case 4
Conclusion 5
References 6
Bibliography 7
Table of Cases
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976].
Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] (AC 465)
Marine & Dredging Co. Ltd. V A Ogden & Son (excavations) Ltd. [1978] QB 574
Derry v Peek (1889)
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158)
Introduction
In any case for misrepresentation claimants must prove the statements, which lured them into a contract, were false. In advising TLC Ltd. as to any possible action they may have for misrepresentation against Answer Ltd. the following facts bear consideration: -
The Facts: -
(i) Statements made by Answer Ltd. representative Valentino who stated that the system was "the number one system for reliability" which was "proving a success and about to be installed in a number of similar business to yours (TLC's)".
(ii) The fact that the Bizarre Pentium IV system was not installed in any other company that engages in TLC's line of business.
(iii) The features that were supposed to be ?part of the package' described in the Sales Literature did not work. As a result, TLC Ltd. incurred a total loss of £50,000 in addition to the deletion of customer records and misplacement of orders.
The aforementioned facts will be analysed with regard to advising TLC Ltd. on whethe ...