Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== 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! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !