Not confused on how to answer it but regarding what the topic of the question is. I don't know if we're all stupid but please see if you can figure it out. It has been narrowed down to either common mistake or misrepresentation. Frustration has been ruled out as there is no supervening act that occurs after the contract is formed.
In September 2015 Harold approached Greta to discuss the hiring of a sailing boat to take part in a sailing competition to be held around the Isle of Wight. Harold was an experienced sailor and wished to enter a boat in the Moonbeam Class, a type of boat he had sailed previously. Boats are categorized as being of a particular class and competitions are held based on the particular class of the boat. Greta informed Harold that she had a Moonbeam Class boat. Harold and Greta inspected the boat and Greta pointed out the modifications that had been made to the boat two years previously to improve the speed and stability of the boat. Harold was impressed by this and he agreed to hire the boat for two days - the day before the race and the day of the race - at a cost of £700 with £350 payable in advance and the balance payable at the end of the week.
Harold paid the first £350 to Greta. Harold collected the boat on 10th September 2015 and took it to the race committee who were organising the sailing competition in order for its class to be confirmed so that it could be entered for the race. This was required of all contestants. Unfortunately, once the race committee inspected the boat they refused to allow it to be entered for the race. They informed Harold that the modifications made to the boat two years ago meant itwas no longer eligible for the Moonbeam Class and could not compete in the event. They also informed Harold that there were no other races that the boat would be eligible for at that particular event.
Harold immediately contacted Greta, returned the boat to her and said he wanted his money back and he would not be paying the outstanding balance.
Is this question common mistake or misrepresentation? Half of first years confused Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by LLBSurrey; 10-05-2016 at 18:53.
- 10-05-2016 18:50
- 22-05-2016 01:24
At a glance it ultimately depends on whether Greta knew that the modifications made to the boat would make it ineligible to be entered into any Moonbeam Class races. If she didn't know, it would probably be a common mistake however if she did know then it would be a misrepresentation from Greta to Harold.
I would be leaning towards mistake from the question, though.
Offline19ReputationRep:Community AssistantPS Reviewer
- Community Assistant
- PS Reviewer
- 24-05-2016 21:29
Top tip - misrepresentation questions are far more specific. Here, it would be the repairs were actually done ten years ago. Something like that. Or "the fastest ship to sail the river, you'll win any race" which is not misrepresentation because it is a mere puff (advert). Whereas "the modification two years ago have been approved by the racing committee" upon which the claimant relies, to their detriment.
As always, caveat emptor.Last edited by Mimir; 24-05-2016 at 21:30.