- Misrepresentation claims—deceit, dishonesty and non-reliance clauses (Sears v Minco)
- Practical implications
- How did the claims in deceit and under MA 1967, s 2(1) arise in this case?
- Deceit—what happens if a defendant does not know the truth of what they state?
- Deceit—what if the statement is ambiguous and the representee understands it in a way which is false?
- Deceit—what amounts to reliance on the statement?
- Was a damages claim under MA 1967, s 2(1) excluded by non-reliance provisions?
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment illustrates the application of the legal principles when considering a claim in deceit for fraudulent misrepresentations including in particular the test for what amounts to dishonesty, what happens if the statement is ambiguous and the representee understands it in a way which is false and what amounts to reliance in deceit cases. The judgment also considers the issue of non-reliance clauses in a claim under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967) and the correct approach to distinguishing between so-called ‘basis of the contract’ clauses and clauses which are, in substance, exclusions of liability, with reference to the decision in Raiffeisen Zentralbank and the approval of the approach in the later decision in Thornbridge (currently subject to appeal).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial