Q&As

Is there any caselaw demonstrating the court’s assessment of damages for misrepresentation where a vendor of a property has misrepresented the situation regarding nuisance neighbours, with damages being sought for loss of enjoyment, stress and inconvenience?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Kate Andrews of Hamlins
Published on LexisPSL on 03/04/2018

The following Property Q&A produced in partnership with Kate Andrews of Hamlins provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Is there any caselaw demonstrating the court’s assessment of damages for misrepresentation where a vendor of a property has misrepresented the situation regarding nuisance neighbours, with damages being sought for loss of enjoyment, stress and inconvenience?
  • Replies to Enquiries

Is there any caselaw demonstrating the court’s assessment of damages for misrepresentation where a vendor of a property has misrepresented the situation regarding nuisance neighbours, with damages being sought for loss of enjoyment, stress and inconvenience?

There are three types of misrepresentation:

  1. fraudulent misrepresentation;

  2. negligent misrepresentation; and

  3. innocent misrepresentation

The remedies vary for each type of misrepresentation and therefore more information is required regarding the context in which the misrepresentation has occurred. The starting point is however, that, the court will award damages to the injured party for losses caused from relying on the misrepresentation (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co).

Fraudulent misrepresentation would occur where the vendor had deliberately made a false representation to the buyer without belief in its truth or recklessly see (Derry v Peek). In quantifying the damages payable, the court confirmed in Eco 3 Capital Ltd v Ludsin Overseas Ltd that a false representation must be made, the vendor must know it is false/reckless and that the buyer intends to rely on it, and by doing so, suffers loss. Fraudulent misrepresentation gives rise to rescission of the contract or damages in the tort of deceit.

It may have been

Related documents:

Popular documents