750. When silence is not misrepresentation.

Except as already stated1, mere silence or inaction, however morally reprehensible it may be2, neither constitutes, nor is equivalent or contributory to, misrepresentation.

In a case where a positive duty of disclosure exists by reason of the particular relationship of the parties, or the fact that the transaction is uberrimae fidei, the transaction may be voidable on the ground of non-disclosure even though the non-disclosure does not amount to misrepresentation3. It has been held previously that mere non-disclosure does not give a right to damages. However, it may now be that where there is a duty to disclose, non-disclosure is