No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Misrepresentation and the Act of 1967*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The law concerning misrepresentations inducing contracts has been the subject of criticism for some years, and in 1959, the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir, referred the matter to the Law Reform Committee. Their Report, published in 1962, had a mixed reception. A learned commentator, writing in this journal, gave it a rather chilly welcome, on the ground that it went too far; on the other hand, Mr. Diamond, writing in the pages ofLaw Reform Now, complained that the Report did not go far enough, and suggested that the subtle distinction between a mere representation and a term of the contract should be abolished. In 1967 the Misrepresentation Act was passed, to give effect, with certain modifications, to such of the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee as had not yet been implemented.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1967
References
1 Cmnd. 1782.
2 [1963] C.L.J. 7.
3 At p. 66.
4 s. 16 (1) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965 provides that a dealer who negotiates a hire-purchase agreement between a customer and a finance company is to be regarded as the agent of the company for the purpose of any representation made by him as to the quality of the goods, thus giving effect to one of the Committee's recommendations (para. 20).
5 Ex p. Briggs (1866) L.R. 1 Eq. 483.
6 Clarke v. Dickson (1858) E.B. & E. 148.
7 White v. Garden (1851) 10 C.B. 919.
8 Pennsylvania Shipping Co. v. Cie. Nationale de Navigation (1936) 155 L.T. 294Google Scholar; [1936] 2 All E.R. 1167. Aliter Cie. Francaise des Chemins de Fer Paris-Orléans v. Leeston Shipping Co. (1919) 1 Ll.L.R. 235Google Scholar.
9 Per Denning L.J. in Leaf v. International Galleries [1950] 2 K.B. 86 at pp. 90–91Google Scholar.
10 Under s. 11 (1) (c) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.
11 (1848) 1 H.L.Cas. 605.
12 Ibid., p. 633.
13 [1905] 1 Ch. 326.
14 So Cheshire & Fifoot, Law of Contract, 6th ed., at p. 251.
15 Per Joyce J. at p. 334.
16 Angel v. Jay [1911] 1 K.B. 666Google Scholar; Edler v. Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359Google Scholar.
17 e.g., by Scrutton, L.J. in Lever Bros. Ltd. v. Bell [1931] 1 K.B. 577 at p. 588Google Scholar, and especially by Denning, L.J. in Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671 at p. 695Google Scholar, and in Leaf v. International Galleries [1950] 2 K.B. 86 at p. 90Google Scholar. See also the classic article by Dr. Hammelmann at 55 L.Q.R. 90.
18 Mackenzie v. Royal Bank of Canada [1934] A.C. 468Google Scholar.
19 e.g., by Lord Evershed M.R. in Leaf v. International Galleries (supra) at p. 95 and by the P.C. in Senanayake v. Cheng [1965] 3 W.L.R. 715Google Scholar.
20 Lords Denning and Wilberforce; contra Lord Upjohn.
21 s. 2 (2).
22 [1936] 2 All E.R. 1167.
23 Ibid, at p. 1171.
24 Compagnie Francaise des Chemins de Fer Paris-Orléans v. Leeston Shipping Co. (1919) 1 Ll.L.R. 235Google Scholar.
25 Under s. 2 (2).
26 [1950] 2 K.B. 86.
27 Ibid, at p. 90.
28 Infra, p. 249.
29 Derry v. Peek (1884) 14 App.Cas. 337.
30 [1964] A.C. 465.
31 Treitel, The Law of Contract, 2nd ed., pp. 228, 261; Stevens, 27 M.L.R. 121, 156; Cheshire & Fifoot (dubitante), Law of Contract, p. 238. The courts have had chances to decide this question, but have not taken them—e.g., Wells v. Buckland [1965] 2 Q.B. 170Google Scholar; Dick Bentley Productions Ltd. v. Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd. [1965] 1 W.L.R. 623Google Scholar.
32 Heilbut Symonds & Co. v. Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30Google Scholar.
33 Whittington v. Seale-Hayne (1900) 16 T.L.R. 181Google Scholar.
34 Supra.
35 s. 2 (1), supra.
36 Burrows v. Rhodes [1899] 1 Q.B. 816.
36a Supra, p. 241.
37 Within s. 2 (1).
38 L'Estrange v. Graucob Ltd. [1934] 2 K.B. 394Google Scholar.
39 Suisse Atlantique Société D'Armement Maritime S.A. v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1966] 2 All E.R. 61Google Scholar.
40 e.g., Road Traffic Act 1960, s. 151; Hire Purchase Act 1965, s. 18 (3).
41 Boyd & Forrest v. Glasgow & S.W. Railway, 1915 S.C.(H.L.) 21Google Scholar.
42 Lord Gardiner mentioned in Committee that the Law Commission (who are undertaking a general review of the law relating to exemption clauses) regarded this clause as in line with their general thinking.
43 [1923] 2 K.B. 490.
44 Atiyah, The Sale of Goods, 3rd ed., 220–222.
45 Varley v. Whipp [1900] 1 Q.B. 513Google Scholar.
46 So Atiyah, op. cit., in his 1st edition, though he has since recanted. Cf. Fridman, Sale of Goods, p. 71.