(Law) Misrepresentation: Difference between negligent & fraudulent misrepresentation

SPECIFICALLY, what is the difference between fraudulent misrepresentation 'done RECKLESSLY' and negligent misrepresentation 'made by a person who had NO REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe something'.

The 2 seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the exact distinction is. Anything would help and thank you!

Reply 1

Monoro

Original post by john appleseed 1

Hi John
The main difference is whether the person 'misrepresenting' had full knowledge of the facts or not.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is done recklessly and involves knowingly and willfully misinforming someone in order to induce them to enter into a contract. A party making fraudulent misrepresentations knows or should know that the information they are providing is false and likely to cause harm. Fraudulent misrepresentation is made with an intent to deceive. On the other hand, negligent misrepresentation is made by a party who had no reasonable grounds to believe something. This means that the party has not taken reasonable steps to make sure that their statement was accurate and true. In this case, there is no intent to deceive but instead, ignorance of the truth or facts.

Hope this helps

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Terms and conditions

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers

Why I chose a law degree and what studying law was like