Contract law mistake v misrepresentationWatch
I'm currently trying to put an essay together with the title "A claimant who has been induced by a fraudster to part with his property will always try to argue that the contrac should be void for mistake because the range of available remedies is better than that for misrepresentation, where various bars to rescission exist"
Am I right in thinking that I should begin with discussing fraudulent misrepresentation then go on to talk about rescission then bars to recession talk about the remedy for mistake is drastically different for mistake as it makes a contract void so third party rights are irrelevant compared to misrepresentation which only makes a contract voidable and takes 3rd party rights into consideration. Remedies for mistake put the claimant in a much better position.
Am I heading in the right direction?