CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

• Zanzibar v British Aerospace. Available for both fraudulent and non-
  fraudulent misrepresentation.


• Explain the remedy of damages. If fraudulent misrepresentation can be
  proved, damages via the tort of deceit – Derry v Peek. If fraudulent
  misrepresentation cannot be proved, damages available under Hedley
  Byrne v Heller if a ‘special’ relationship exists; otherwise damages under
  the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(1) without the need to prove fraud.


• Consider the following points: the Misrepresentation Act 1967 is now
  the normal route to a remedy, and the most widely used; the burden of
  proof shifts to the misrepresentor to prove innocence; this is a heavy
  burden and it is difficult to avoid liability – Howard Marine v Ogden;
  damages are assessed on a tort basis putting the injured party into the
  position which they would have been in had the wrong not happened –
  Royscott v Rogerson; loss of profits may also be recoverable in some
  circumstances – East v Maurer.


• Conclude by observing that the remedies for non-fraudulent
  misrepresentation are now more or less equivalent to those for breach
  of contract or fraudulent misrepresentation.

Question 5

This is another question on remedies. Use the material from Question 4

(above) and tailor it to respond to this question (see comments on the end

of Chapter 11 on misrepresentation).

Question 6

• This is similar in content to Question 5. Use the same material but
  respond to the statement in the question.


• You could point out that the net result of suing for breach of contract
  may be very similar to the result of suing in misrepresentation – and
  that this is fair, since an untrue statement in either situations could have
  serious consequences.
  You could discuss the differences in the routes to obtaining the remedies.

Chapter 12: Mistake

Question 1

This problem question concerns unilateral mistake over identity, and you

need to show at the beginning that you recognise that. It is fine to introduce

mistake generally as a vitiating factor, negating true consent, but do not

waste valuable time on detail of other types of mistake.

Answers guide 313

CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 313