|
|
Restitution
front page
What's
new?
Archive
front page
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007 2006 2008
2009
|
|
|
<== Previous
message Back
to index Next
message ==>
Sender: |
Jason
Neyers |
Date: |
Fri,
2 Apr 2004 15:24:23 -0500 |
Re: |
Undue Influence and Innocent Misrepresentations |
Robert Stevens wrote:
Where rescission for misrepresentation
is concerned, the misrepresentation need not be fundamental nor need
it be shared. All that is necessary is that the misrepresentation, however
minor, was in part a cause of the decision to enter into the deal
(Edgington v Fitmaurice (1885) 29 ChD 459).
I am not sure that this accurately states the law, at
least not the Canadian common law. For example, Fridman, The Law of
Contract (p. 320 ff) argues that the misrepresentation must be "substantial"
and that a merely causative mistake induced by a innocent misrepresentation
is not enough for rescission (citing Kennedy v. Royal Mail of Panama
(1867) LR 2 QB 580 and other Canadian appellate authority). If this is
correct, then I think that there is some justification for integrating
IM into the law of mistake of fundamental assumptions.
--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
<== Previous
message Back
to index Next
message ==>
" These messages
are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice,
to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very
few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly
not this one. Have a nice day! "
|