In the case of proceedings to have the contract set aside it is not necessary for the representee1 to allege or prove that he has exercised his right of election by avoiding the contract, the claim or counterclaim being itself sufficient2, and the burden being on the representor3 to prove affirmation and not on the representee to prove avoidance4. In the case of a defence, on the other hand, it appears that the burden is on the representee of proving not merely that the contract was induced by misrepresentation, but also that, having become voidable on that ground, it
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
0330 161 1234