Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I don't know what the Canadian cases are but Kennedy v Royal Mail of Panama is a decision of Blackburn J. It is concerned with the ability to set aside a contract at common law. At common law it was (and is) a requirement that the misrepresentation be 'substantial.' At common law, of course, the misrepresentation also had to be fraudulent.

In equity, the misrepresentation neither has to be substantial nor does it have to be fraudulent: Edgington v Fitzmaurice. Does Canada not possess the right to rescind for innocent misrepresentation in equity?

RS

In message <406DCBF7.4050207@uwo.ca> Jason Neyers writes:

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.