The Student Room Group

Why would Smith v Hughes not be a misrepresentation case?

I understand mistake was rejected due to the mistake not being as to the terms, but as it was mistake as to the facts of the case, shouldn’t the sellers statement that the oats were new when they were in fact old be a misrepresentation?

I’m thinking it can’t be a misrepresentation because the buyer inspected the oats before buying them, so wasn’t actually induced into contracting.. is this right?

Thankyou
Original post by barbdwyer
I understand mistake was rejected due to the mistake not being as to the terms, but as it was mistake as to the facts of the case, shouldn’t the sellers statement that the oats were new when they were in fact old be a misrepresentation?

I’m thinking it can’t be a misrepresentation because the buyer inspected the oats before buying them, so wasn’t actually induced into contracting.. is this right?

Thankyou


And what were the remedies for misrepresentation in 1871?
Reply 2
Avatar for barbdwyer
barbdwyer
OP
Original post by nulli tertius
And what were the remedies for misrepresentation in 1871?


Very helpful.
It was not found as a fact that the seller described the oats as "old" (the buyer wanted old oats and the seller had new). The jury was misdirected and not asked specifically to answer this question.

But if they had found such a fact, there would not have been need to rely on misrep since it would have been breach of a contractual term even in 1871.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you