In English law, misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact, inducing another to enter into a contract, which can render the contract voidable.
Misrepresentation must be a false, factual statement made by one party to another, relied upon when entering into the contract. Opinions or predictions typically do not constitute misrepresentation unless stated falsely as facts.
Affected parties may seek remedies such as:
Understanding misrepresentation encourages honesty and transparency in negotiations, ensuring contractual fairness and informed consent.
Purchasers sought to rescind a sale after discovering the seller’s representations about an ironworks were inaccurate. The House of Lords refused rescission because they had relied on their own extensive independent investigation, establishing that actionable misrepresentation requires actual reliance on the representation.
Mrs O’Brien mortgaged the matrimonial home to secure her husband’s company debts after he misrepresented the transaction. The Court of Appeal set the charge aside, holding that Barclays was put on inquiry and had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure her consent was properly obtained.
Bisset sold land to Wilkinson for sheep farming, stating his opinion that the land could carry 2,000 sheep. The buyers sought rescission for misrepresentation when farming proved unsuccessful. The Privy Council held that the statement was honestly held opinion, not misrepresentation of fact, since neither party knew the land's actual sheep-carrying capacity.
A state secondary school brought a passing off action against a nearby private educational establishment using the similar name 'Cranford College'. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the descriptive name had not acquired sufficient secondary meaning to establish goodwill, and no actionable misrepresentation had occurred.
Mr Bentley purchased a Bentley car from a dealer who represented it had done only 20,000 miles since being fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox. This statement was false. The Court of Appeal held this was a warranty, not merely an innocent misrepresentation, because the dealer was in a position to know the facts and had no reasonable foundation for the statement.
The Government of Zanzibar purchased an executive jet aircraft from British Aerospace, alleging misrepresentations about its airworthiness and reliability. The court dismissed the main action for delay and abuse of process, holding that issuing writs at limitation's end without readiness to proceed was impermissible. The judgment clarified that damages under section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act require an extant right to rescission.
Buckleton purchased shares in a rubber company after a telephone conversation with the defendants' agent. When the company proved not to be primarily a rubber company, he claimed damages for breach of warranty. The House of Lords held no warranty existed, establishing that representations only become warranties if intended as such.
Ogdens hired barges from Howards for excavation work after being told the barges could carry 1600 tonnes. The actual capacity was only about 1055 tonnes. The Court of Appeal held Howards liable under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 as they failed to prove reasonable grounds for their belief in the accuracy of the representation.
The defendant granted the plaintiffs an option to purchase his house for £10,000, receiving £1 consideration. He later attempted to withdraw but the plaintiffs exercised the option. The Court of Appeal upheld specific performance, confirming that nominal consideration supports a valid irrevocable option, and the resulting contract was enforceable.
A motor dealer bought a Morris car described as a 1948 model based on the registration book, but it was actually a 1939 model. The Court of Appeal held the seller's statement was an innocent misrepresentation, not a contractual warranty, as neither party had special knowledge of the car's true age.
A motor bicycle was sold through a chain of buyers, with each seller stating it was a 1941-1942 model based on the registration book, which was false. The Court of Appeal held that such statements were mere representations, not warranties, and the final seller was not liable in damages.
A motor dealer misrepresented the deposit amount to a finance company to secure a hire-purchase agreement. The customer later dishonestly sold the car and defaulted. The Court of Appeal held that damages under s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 are assessed as for fraudulent misrepresentation, allowing recovery of all direct losses even if unforeseeable.
Waterlow negligently printed unauthorised Portuguese banknotes after being deceived by a fraudster. The House of Lords held that the Bank of Portugal reasonably withdrew the entire issue and could recover the face-value loss caused by the breach, applying a pragmatic approach to mitigation.
A property developer purchased land from a council for over £5 million. After completion, a private sewer easement was discovered crossing the site. The developer sought to rescind the contract on grounds of misrepresentation and mistake. The Court of Appeal held that contractual conditions allocated the risk of unknown easements to the purchaser, precluding rescission.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive