The seller of a hair salon fraudulently stated he would not work in a nearby rival salon. The buyers suffered losses after he did so. The Court held that damages for deceit could include the profits the buyers might have made had they bought a different, non-fraudulent business instead. Facts The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs East, purchased one of two hairdressing salons owned by the defendant, Mr Maurer, for £20,000. During negotiations, the defendant fraudulently represented that he had no intention of working in his other salon in the same town and that he intended to move abroad. The plaintiffs
A buyer was induced to purchase a business by fraudulent misrepresentation. He suffered greater losses than anticipated. The court held that in cases of fraud, the plaintiff is entitled to recover all direct losses, even if unforeseeable, not just the contract-based measure. Facts Mr Doyle, the plaintiff, purchased an ironmonger’s business from the defendants, Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd, for £4,500, plus £5,000 for the stock. He was induced to make the purchase by a fraudulent misrepresentation from the company’s director that the business’s trade was ‘all over the counter’. In fact, a substantial portion of the trade came from a travelling
Dodds offered to sell property to Dickinson, with the offer open until Friday. Before accepting, Dickinson learned from a third party that Dodds had sold to another. The court held this indirect communication was a valid revocation of the original offer. Facts On Wednesday, 10th June 1874, the Defendant, John Dodds, signed and delivered to the Plaintiff, George Dickinson, a memorandum offering to sell a property for £800. The offer included a postscript stating: “This offer to be left over until Friday, 9 o’clock, a.m. J.D. (the 12th of June).” On Thursday afternoon, the Plaintiff was informed by a third
A car dealer stated a car had only done 20,000 miles since a replacement engine. This was false. The court found this was a contractual warranty, not an innocent representation, because the dealer, as a specialist, was in a position of knowledge. Facts The claimant, Mr Dick Bentley (of Dick Bentley Productions Ltd), was a long-standing customer of the defendant car dealers, Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd. Mr Bentley informed Mr Smith that he was looking for a ‘well-vetted’ Bentley car. Mr Smith subsequently acquired a Bentley car and told Mr Bentley that the vehicle had only travelled 20,000 miles since
Company directors issued a prospectus stating they had the right to use steam power, honestly believing consent was a formality. This proved false. The House of Lords held that for an action in deceit, fraudulent intent must be proven, not mere carelessness. Facts The directors of the Plymouth, Devonport and District Tramways Company issued a prospectus to attract public investment. The prospectus stated that under its special Act, the company had the right to use steam or mechanical power for its trams, which would be a significant advantage over competitors using horse-drawn trams. In reality, the Act stipulated that the
Contractors agreed to build houses for a fixed price in eight months. Due to an unexpected labour shortage, it took 22 months and cost significantly more. The court ruled the contract was not frustrated, as increased difficulty or expense does not fundamentally change the obligation. Facts In July 1946, Davis Contractors Ltd tendered for a contract with Fareham Urban District Council to build 78 houses for a fixed sum of £94,424. The work was scheduled to be completed within 8 months. Included with the tender was a letter stating the bid was subject to adequate supplies of labour and materials
A council arranged for a finance company to commission a building on its land. When defects arose, the builder argued the council couldn't sue for substantial damages. The court permitted the claim, extending an exception to privity of contract for a known third party. Facts Darlington Borough Council (‘the Council’) wished to construct a recreational centre on its own land. To navigate public sector borrowing controls, it entered into a complex arrangement. A finance company, Morgan Grenfell (Local Authority Finance) Limited (‘MG’), contracted with Wiltshier Northern Ltd (‘WNL’) to carry out the construction work. The Council was not a party
Appellants were a group of sado-masochistic homosexuals who willingly engaged in violent acts for sexual pleasure. The House of Lords held that their consent was no defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, establishing limits on consensual violent activity. Facts The appellants were a group of adult homosexual men who, over a period of ten years, willingly and consensually participated in sado-masochistic acts in private. These activities involved acts of violence, including nailing a person’s penis to a board, branding with a hot wire, and beatings, all for the purpose of sexual gratification. The activities were recorded on
Rebekah Vardy’s libel claim against Coleen Rooney was dismissed after the High Court held Rooney’s allegations substantially true. A 2025 appeal by Vardy concerning alleged misconduct over legal costs was also dismissed. Facts Rebekah Vardy sued Coleen Rooney for libel over a viral social media post Rooney made on 9 October 2019. Both women are high-profile figures – “well-known media and television personalities” married to former England footballers. In Rooney’s post (dubbed the “Reveal Post”), she dramatically accused Vardy’s Instagram account of leaking her private Instagram stories to The Sun newspaper. Rooney explained that after months of suspicion, she set
A property seller offered to exchange contracts if the buyer attended with a signed contract and deposit cheque. The buyer complied, but the seller refused to proceed. The court held a binding unilateral contract existed, which the seller breached by revoking their offer. Facts The plaintiffs, Dahlia Ltd, negotiated to purchase properties from the first defendants, Four Millbank Nominees Ltd. The essential terms were agreed. The defendants’ solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs’ solicitors stating they were instructed to proceed. Crucially, the defendants’ representative orally informed the plaintiffs that if they attended the defendants’ office with a counterpart contract signed by
