On having to be a deceived recipient of a misrepresentation for an action in deceit, authorities includePeek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 (considering an action in equity, but clearly stating that the same principle applied to deceit at common law); Edgington v Fitzmaurice 29 Ch D 459 (1884) per Denman J at p. 467; see particularly Bowen LJ in the CA at p. 482 ‘… but it is material that the defendant should intend that it should be relied on by the person to whom he makes it… you must further shew that the plaintiff has acted upon it and has sustained damage by so doing …’

Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v Borders [1941] 2 All ER 205, per Viscount Maugham at p. 211.’Thirdly, it must be made with the intention that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff, or by a class of persons which will include the plaintiff, in the manner which resulted in damage to him: Peek v Gurney and Smith v Chadwick, at p 201. If, however, fraud be established, it is immaterial that there was no intention to cheat or injure the person to whom the false statement was made: Derry v Peek, at p 374, and Peek v Gurney, at p 409.

There is some discussion in Commercial Banking  Company of Sydney Ltd v RH  Brown  & Co(1972) 126 CLR 337 (HCA) if I remember correctly.

Jason Neyers

Professor of Law

Faculty of Law

Western University

N6A 3K7

(519) 661-2111 x. 88435 

1. Deceit is an interesting issue.

 

Now, my understanding of deceit is that the claimant must have been deceived. So it would not be enough to show that you have been left worse off as a result of deceit if you yourself have not been deceived. The gist of deceit is being deceived, not suffering loss.

 

However, I don't off the top of my head know of any Commonwealth authority standing for that proposition, or the opposite (there is US authority, but there is US authority for most legal propositions.)

 

Anyone?