Why would Smith v Hughes not be a misrepresentation case?
University course discussion for law.
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Junior Member
- Posts: 44
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 -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 7,097
Re: Why would Smith v Hughes not be a misrepresentation case?And what were the remedies for misrepresentation in 1871?(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 -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Junior Member
- Posts: 44
Re: Why would Smith v Hughes not be a misrepresentation case?Very helpful.(Original post by nulli tertius)
And what were the remedies for misrepresentation in 1871? -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,354
Re: Why would Smith v Hughes not be a misrepresentation case?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.Last edited by Forum User; 07-05-2012 at 16:06.
