Statements of future intentions
These are not generally actionable as misrepresentations. However, if it can
be proved that the representor never intended to do the promised act at the
time of making the statement, then the claim may be regarded as a
statement of fact, that is to say a mis-statement of the state of the
representor’s mind. Again, this raises problems of evidence, but if sufficient
proof is available, then there is no reason why this should not be actionable.
Misrepresentation 169- there was a relationship between the two where the Esso expert owed a
duty to take greater care than the average person over his statements
(see page 168 for more on this) - there was a change in circumstances (of which Esso were aware)
which meant that Esso should have revised the forecast throughput
of petrol before the purchase of the business took place (again, see
later for more on this).
Inntrepreneur v Hollard (2000)
A wrong statement of the takings of a pub was held to be a
misrepresentation because it was made by a person who, it was felt,
should know the accurate takings. This is moving a long way from the
usual principles of contract law where the court looks for external
evidence rather than trying to ‘read’ the minds of the parties.British Gas v Nelson (2002)
British Gas made forecasts of sales to Nelson before forming a contract
under which Nelson would install appliances on basis of the estimated
number of clients. The figures were badly inaccurate and Nelson sued
British Gas for misrepresentation as they did not have the quantity of
work envisaged. British Gas were seen to be the party who held the
accurate knowledge (or should have done) and were led liable.Sykes v Taylor-Rose(2004)
This case contrasts with those above. It was held that the sellers of a
house did not have a duty to tell the buyers that the house had once
been the setting for a murder, even though this meant that, as a
consequence, the buyers then resold the house at a loss of £25,000.Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885)
Shares in a business venture were sold, the publicity stating that the aim
was to expand and improve the business. However, in letters to other
people there was written evidence that the company planned to use the
money raised by shares to pay off existing debts. These statements of