Answers guide 323- By continuing to use the car Spencer may have lost the right to rescind
but may be awarded damages in lieu under s.2(2) of the
Misrepresentation Act.
Statement B- Section 2(1) gives a general right to damages following a
misrepresentation but the burden is on the other party to show
reasonable grounds for belief in their statements. - Spencer, then, only has to show that a false statement has been made,
and it is up to Belinda to show that it was reasonable to believe in what
she said. This is a heavy burden to discharge.
Statement C- Silence generally does not amount to a misrepresentation, but there are
exceptions, such as a half true statement. - Spencer will have to try to show that one of these situations exists
(which is unlikely).
Statement D- Fraudulent misrepresentation is based on dishonesty – see the
definition in Derry v Peek. - There is no evidence in the question that Belinda acted dishonestly, as
it says that she relied on the mileage counter. It would be up to Spencer
to prove fraud.
Question 2
Statement A- Generally the performance of an existing contractual duty does not
amount to consideration (Stylk v Myrick). However, since Williams v
Roffey, a practical benefit may be enough to enforce an agreement to
pay extra money. - It could be argued that Hamish is doing no more than his original duty,
but on the other hand Sue is saved the trouble of finding other
contractors and gets her work done for the summer season.
Statement B- Promissory estoppel arises when there is a promise not to enforce a
contract and this is relied upon by the other party.
CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 323