Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:44:29.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of ‘Dwaling’ under the New Civil Code Compared to the English Doctrine of Misrepresentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

M. M. van Rossum
Get access

Extract

In this article the concept of dwaling will be examined in comparison with the English doctrine of misrepresentation. Dwaling — like misrepresentation — plays a role in the formation of the contract and concerns the intention of the parties to create legal relations. The concept of dwaling under Dutch law has been developed from a traditional ‘defect of the will’, a ‘vice of consent’ where the main emphasis is on the error of the mistaken party, to a legal concept with the emphasis on the false precontractual statement of fact made by the other party or his failure to disclose information. This evolution of dwaling through the years may be traced in s. 6:228 of the new Civil Code (CC) which came into force on 1 January 1992.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , December 1992 , pp. 303 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dwaling in Dutch law is a concept which covers both misrepresentation and mistake.

2. Parlementaire Geschiedenis (Parliamentary History), Book 6 pp. 899–911;Google ScholarHartkamp, A.S., ‘Kwartaalbericht Nieuw BW’, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bugerlijk Recht (NTBR)(1989) No. 4, pp. 101–104.Google Scholar

3. The other wilsgebreken in Dutch law, to wit fraud, threat (duress) and abuse of circumstances (undue influence), are to be found in s. 3:44 CC and are generally applicable to all ‘rechtshande-lingen’ (juridical acts) whereas dwaling primarily concerns contracts.

4. (1957) NJ 1958, 67.Google Scholar

5. (1973) NJ 1974, 97.Google Scholar

6. See, e.g., De Galon, Hildas v. (1981), NJ 1981, 442.Google Scholar

7. See, e.g., Stevensweert, Kantharos van (1959), NJ 1960, 59.Google Scholar

8. See Vranken, J.B.M.,in NJB (1990) p.487.Google Scholar

9. Parlementaire Geschiedenis (Parliamentary History), Book 6, pp. 914–915.Google Scholar

10. See Schreven, Hoogenstrijd v. (1989), NJ 1990, 235.Google Scholar

11. (1982), NJ 1983, 723.Google Scholar

12. See Plas v. Valburg, ibid., and H.C.F. Schoordijk, Onderhandelen te goeder trouw (1984) pp. 37–38.

13. See among others Hondius, E.H., in NJB (1980) p. 849;Google ScholarNTBR (1986) No. 3, pp. 92–98;Google ScholarTijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht (TVC) (1991) pp. 324–337;Google ScholarConsumentenrecht, Monografieēn Nieuw BW (1992). Under the new Civil Code there are some special statutory provisions made to protect the consumer's interests, e.g., the regulation of standard form contracts, general conditions (especially ss. 6:236 and 237 CC), the regulation of product liability (s. 6:185 CC et seq.), specific provisions for sale by a consumer in chap. 7.1 CC, etc. See on consumer protection also TvC (1992) p. 3 et seq.Google Scholar

14. See among others on mis subject, Stoljar, S.J., Mistake and Misrepresentation (1968);Google ScholarAtiyah, P.S., An Introduction to the Law of Contracts (1981) pp. 218–288;Google ScholarCheshire, & Fifoof's, Law of Contract (1986) pp. 216–296;Google ScholarTreitel, G.H., The Law of Contract (1987) pp. 254–311;Google ScholarAllen, D.K., Misrepresentation (1988);Google ScholarChitty on Contracts, vol I, ‘General Principles’ (1989) paras. 411–493;Google ScholarWhincup, M.H., Contract Law and Practice (1990) chap. 11.Google Scholar

15. See Riezenkamp, Boris v. (1957), NJ 1958, 67;Google ScholarWisman, Booy v. (1966), NJ 1966, 183;Google ScholarCrombag Spaai, Ernst en Latten v. BV (1986), NJ 1986, 747.Google Scholar

16. (1986), NJ 1986, 747.Google Scholar

17. [1958] 2 All ER 79.

18. [1957] 1A11ER 325.

19. 1965] 2 All ER 65.

20. [1881] 20 Ch 1.

21. (1973), NJ 1974, 97,Google Scholar see also Snijders, Willart v. (1987), NJ 1988, 345.Google Scholar

22. (1982), NJ 1983, 509,Google Scholar see also Bink, Van Lanschot v. Berthe, NJ 1991, 759.Google Scholar

23. (1969), NJ 1969, 344.Google Scholar

24. (1947), NJ 1947, 270,Google Scholar see also Scharrenburg, RVS v. Van (1991), NJ 1991, 493.Google Scholar

25. (1990), NJ 1991, 251,Google Scholar see also Ronton, Stavenuiter v. (1985), NJ 1986, 213.Google Scholar

26. See Treitel, , op. cit. n. 14, p. 301;Google ScholarAllen, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 21–22;Google ScholarChitty, , op. cit n. 14, para. 419.Google Scholar

27. [1932] AC 161.

28. [1936] Ch 575.

29. [1978] 1 All ER 1253. See also Allen, D., ‘Non-Disclosure: Hairskirt or Halo?’, MLR (1992) pp. 96–101.Google Scholar

30. [1866] 2 Ch App 55 at 61. See also Nicolas, B., ‘The Precontractual Obligation to Disclose Information’, in Harris, D. and Talon, D., eds., Contract Law Today, Anglo-French Comparison (1989) pp. 166–193.Google Scholar

31. [1922] 2 Ch 199. See also Laurence v. Lexcourt Holdings Ltd. [1978] 1 WLR 1128Google Scholar and recently on this subject Harpum, C., Selling Without Title: A Vendor's Duty of Disclosure (1992). See also section 5.3.Google Scholar

32. See, e.g., Regis, Dutton v. Bognor UDC [1972] QB 373Google Scholar and Merton, Anns v. London BC [1978] AC 728.Google Scholar

33. See, eg., Seghers, Hercules (1959), NJ 1959, 179.Google Scholar

34. See Stevensweert, Kantharos van (1959), NJ 1960, 59Google Scholar and recently Henriquez, E. Cohen, ‘De wederzijdse dwaling (art 6:228 lid 1 sub c NBW)’, in Liber amicorum NBW Amhem-Deventer-Zwolle (1991) pp. 81–86.Google Scholar

35. See, e.g., Hastle, Couturier v. [1852] 8 Exch 40Google Scholar and Galloway, Galloway v. [1914] 30 TLR 531.Google Scholar

36. See, e.g., Martin, Bligh v. [1968] 1 All ER 1157.Google Scholar

37. Treitel, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 215–219;Google ScholarChitty, , op. cit. n. 14, para. 369 et seq;Google ScholarBell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1932] AC 161.Google Scholar

38. See, e.g., in Schouten, Dutch law Schouten v. (1937), NT 1937, 1058;Google ScholarSeghers, Hercules (1959), NJ 1959, 179;Google ScholarStevensweert, Kantharos van (1959), NJ 1960, 59;Google Scholaronderwijs, Van Smeden v. Chr. (1972), NJ 1973,37;Google ScholarBink, Van Lanschot v. Berthe (1990), NJ 1991, 759.Google Scholar In English law see Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1932] AC 161;Google ScholarButcher, Solle v. [1949] 2 All ER 1107;Google ScholarBailey, Grist v. [1967] Ch 532.Google Scholar

39. See Chitty, , op. cit. n. 14, paras. 372–375.Google Scholar

40. E.g., Dommelsch, Van Baar v. (1990), RvdW 1990, 112Google Scholar and s. 3:52 (1) sub (c), respectively Leafy. International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86,Google ScholarChitty, , op. cit n. 14, para. 475.Google Scholar

41. Sections 3:86 and 3:88 CC.

42. Section 3:86 CC.

43. Chitty, , op. cit n. 14, para. 476.Google Scholar

44. [1889] 4 AC 337.

45. See among others Hedley Byrne v. Heller and Partners Ltd. [1964] AC 465;Google ScholarMardon, Esso Petro-leum v. [1976] 2 WLR 582,Google Scholar recently confirmed in Morgan Crucible Co. v. Hill Samual & Co. [1991] 2 WLR 655 (CA).Google Scholar Moreover, see on this topic Smith v. Eric S. Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 and Caparo Industries pic. v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.Google Scholar

46. See Treitel, , op. cit. n. 14, pp. 265–267;Google ScholarAllen, , op. cit. n. 14, pp. 61–87 and pp. 160–162;Google ScholarMartin, R., ‘Categories of Negligence and Duties of Care’, MLR (1990) pp. 824–828.Google Scholar

47. See among others Howard Marine v. Ogden [1978] 1 QB 574; Royscot Trust Ltd. v. Roger-son and another [1991] 3WLR 57.Google Scholar

48. Cooke, P.J. and Oughton, D.W., The Common Law of Obligations (1989) pp. 271 and 471- 476.Google Scholar See along these lines also Esso Petroleum v. Mardon [1976] 2 WLR 582; Howard Marine v. Ogden [1978] 1 QB 574 and Schoordijk, , op. cit n. 12;Google ScholarHarris v. Wyre Forest DC [1989] 2 All ER 514; Morgan Crucible Co. v. Hill Samuel & Co. [1991] 2 WLR 655 (CA);Google ScholarNaughton v. O'Callag-han [1990] 3 All ER 191; East v. Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733 and recently on the subject of damages for misrepresentation, Wadsley, J., ‘Measures in Misrepresentation: Recent Steps in Awarding Damages’, MLR (1992) pp. 698–705.Google Scholar See for the American law: Rittenberg, L. III, ‘Duty to Inform’, Tulane LR (1991) p. 166Google Scholar where it is stated that damages available under negligent misrepresentation also covers lost profits.

49. For English law see Atiyah, P.S., The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (1979) p. 771–772Google Scholar and ‘The Binding Nature of Contractual Obligation’, in Contract Law Today, Anglo-French Comparisons (1989) pp. 21–38;Google ScholarCheshire, & Fifoot, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 269–273 and pp. 285–286;Google ScholarCooke, and Oughton, , op. cit n. 48, pp. 46–69;Google ScholarAllen, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 77–87. See for Dutch law section 2.2.2 supra.Google Scholar

50. Chitty, , op. cit. n. 14, para. 440.Google Scholar

51. Cheshire, & Fifoot, , op. cit n. 14, p. 286;Google ScholarChitty, , op. cit n. 14, para 439;Google ScholarChesneau v. Interhome Ltd. [1983] CLY 988;Google Scholar recently Royscot Trust Ltd. v. Rogerson and another [1991] 3 WLR 57,Google Scholar annotated by Hooley, R., ‘Damages and the Misrepresentation Act 1967’, LQR (1991) pp. 547–551.Google Scholar

52. Cooke, and Oughton, , op. cit n. 48, p. 271 and pp. 471–476.Google Scholar See for damages in Dutch law Asser-Hartkamp I (1988) paras. 404–504.

53. See in this way Lord Denning MR in Esso Pretolewn Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] 2 All ER pp. 16–17 (damages);Google ScholarMorgan Crucible Co. v. Hill Samual & Co. [1991] 2 WLR 6SS (CA);Google ScholarEast v. Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733 and Wadsley, , op. cit n. 48, pp. 704–705.Google Scholar

54. E.g., Stavenuiter v. Ranton (1985), NJ 1986, 213; Van Geest v. Nederlof (1990), NJ 1991, 251; Vranken, J.B.M., Mededelings-, informatie- en onderzoeksplichten in het verbintenissenrecht (1989) pp. 7–8;Google ScholarGerbrandy, S. in WPNR 5959 (1990).Google Scholar

55. See Rossum, M.M. van, Dwaling in het bijzonder bij de koop van onroerend goed (1991) pp. 75–169.Google Scholar

56. In s. 7:15 CC (see further section 4.3 infra) a mote strict standard is laid down which allocates die risk especially for third party rights against the vendor.

57. See Van Rossum, , op. cit n. 55, pp. 87–111.Google Scholar

58. Eg., Polluted soil case Smilde (1984), KG 1984,159; Polluted soil case Gouda (1984), BR 1985, p. 393;Google ScholarAgo case (1985), BR 1986, p. 132;Google ScholarGasfactory case The Hague (1987), NT 1988,139; Polluted soil case Maassluis (1988) and (1990), BR 1988, p. 845 resp. 1991, p. 625.Google Scholar

59. See ibid.Gasfactory case The Hague (1987) and Polluted soil case Maassluis (1988) and (1990); Grosheide, F.W. and van Rossum, M.M., Handboek Milieu-aansprakelijkheid: ‘Aansprake-lijkheid in contractuele rekties’ (1992).Google Scholar

60. See for a debate on this subject BR 1988, p. 877 et seq.

61. See Van Rossum, , op. cit. n. 55, pp. 113–147,Google Scholar and recently concerning s.7: 15, Heyman, H.W. and van Rossum, M.M., ‘Artikel 7:15 BW: een valkuil voor verkoper en toper van onroerend goed (I) en (II)’, WPNR 6046 and 6047.Google Scholar

62. See van Velten, A.A., Preadvies Vereniging voor Bouwrecht nr. 13 (1985) p. 34.Google Scholar

63. See, e.g., Teering v. Putman [1980], NJ 1981, 51;Google ScholarErven Boyé v. Eilandgebied Curaçao [1985], NJ 1986, 760.Google Scholar

64. See Van Rossum, , op. cit n. 55, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar

65. See the RAVI report Wat niet weet, maar toch deert (December 1990).

66. See van Velten, A.A. in WPNR 5871–5872 (1988);Google ScholarSwinkels v. gemeente Best (1984), NJ 1985, 85;Google ScholarTürk v. Van den Berg (1984), NJ 1984, 204;Google ScholarErnst en Latten v. Crombag Spaed BV (1986), NJ 1986, 747;Google ScholarCoremans v. Jansen (1987), KG 1987, 539;Google ScholarWillart v. Snijders (1987), NJ 1988, 345.Google Scholar

67. See, e.g., Van der Meer v. gemeente Smilde (1986), NJ 1986,714.Google Scholar

68. Farrand, J.T., Contract and Conveyance (1980) pp. 56–62;Google ScholarAnnand, R. and Cain, B., Modern Conveyancing (1984) pp. 215–255;Google ScholarEmmet on Title, Emmet's Notes on Perusing Titles and on Prac-tical Conveyance 19th edn., Chap. 1, part 2; and recently Gran Gelato Ltd. v. Richcliff (Group) Ltd. [1992] 1 All ER 865.Google Scholar

69. Annand, and Cain, , op. cit. n. 68, p. 57;Google ScholarAnnand, and Cain, , Enquiries before Contract (1986) pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

70. See Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1932] AC 161.Google Scholar

71. Farrand, , op. cit. n. 68, pp. 62–67;Google ScholarEmmet on Title, op. cit n. 68, Chap. 1, part 1, Chap. 4, part 3.

72. Annand, and Cain, , op. cit. n. 68, p. 59.Google Scholar

73. Annand, and Cain, , op. cit n. 68, pp. 225–234;Google ScholarAnnand, and Cain, , op. cit n. 69, pp. 8–11;Google ScholarEmmet on Title, op. cit n. 68, Chap. 1, part 2; and recently Harpum, C., ‘Exclusion Clauses and Contracts for the Sale of Land’, Cambridge LJ (1992) pp. 263–307.Google Scholar

74. See Van Rossum, , op. cit n. 55, pp. 97–98;Google ScholarNieuwenhuis, J.H., Drie beginselen van conractenrecht (1979) pp. 63,66 and 97.Google Scholar

75. Asser-Hartkamp II (1989) paras. 33–46; Chitty, , op. cit n. 14, para. 4.Google Scholar

76. See in Dutch law concerning consumer protection supra n. 13, in English law especially relating to exemption clauses several provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and re-cently concerning the idea of consumer protection, e.g., Hayes, J.A., ‘After Murphy: Building on the Consumer Protection Principle’, Oxford JLS (1992) pp. 112–128.Google Scholar

77. Concerning exemption rules in Dutch law see, among others, Hondius, E.H., Standaardvoor-waarden (1978) p. 454 et seq.Google Scholar See further Asser-Hartkamp I (1988) paras. 339–347; Rijken, G.J., Exoneratieclausules (1983);Google ScholarJongeneel, R.H.C., De Wet algemene voorwaarden en het AGB-Gesetz (1991) paras. 149 and 396Google Scholar and the leading cases on this topic: Saladin v. HBU (1967), NT 1967, 261;Google ScholarVan der Loan v. Top (1976), NJ 1976, 486.Google Scholar In English law: Cheshire, & Fifoot, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 149–188;Google ScholarTreitel, , op. cit n. 14, pp. 150–212,Google ScholarChitty, , op. cit n. 14, paras. 941–1045;Google ScholarWhincup, , op. cit. n. 14, ch. 7;Google ScholarMacDonald, E., ‘Express and Implied Terms and Exemptions’, LQR (1991) pp. 555–558;Google ScholarSmith v. Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514; Harris v. Wyre Forest District Council [1989] 2 All ER 514. English law — in contrast to Dutch law — recognizes no broad principle of good faith and fair dealing and therefore seems to adopt a more positivist approach. See recently, Phang, A., ‘Positivism in the English Law of Contract’, MLR (1992) pp. 102–111.Google Scholar

78. See Miller v. Jackson [1977] QB 966; Masters v. Brent London BC [1978] QB 841.

79. See Dutton v. Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 QB 373; Hone v. Benson [1978] 248 EG 1013.

80. [1978] AC 278.

81. See Caveat Emptor in Sales of Land: A Consultation Paper from the Conveyancing Standing Committee of the Law Commission (1988) p. 4.Google Scholar

82. See Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [1990] 30 WLR 414 (HL), and concerning die Murphy case, Howarth, D., ‘Negligence After Murphy: Time to Rethink’, CLT (1991) pp. 58–99;Google ScholarO'Dair, R., ‘Murphy v. Brentwood District Council: A House with Htm Foundations?’, MLR (1991) pp. 561–570;Google ScholarHarris, J.W., ‘Murphy Makes it Eight. Overruling Comes to Negligence’, Oxford JLS (1991) pp. 416–430;Google ScholarHayes, , loc. cit n. 76;Google ScholarMarkesirus, B.S. and Deakin, S., ‘The Random Element of their Lordships' Infallible Judgement: An Economic and Comparative Analysis of the Tort of Negligence from Arms to Murphy’, MLR (1992) pp. 619–646.Google Scholar

83. [1922] 2 Ch. 199.

84. See also E.R. Ives Investments Ltd. v. High [1967] 2 QB 279;Google ScholarWard v. Kirkland [1967] Ch. 194.

85. Emmet on Title, op. cit n. 68, Chap. 4, part 3; Harpum, , op. cit n. 31.Google Scholar

86. Maudsley, and Burn's, Land Law: Cases and Materials (1980);Google ScholarCheshire, and Burn's, Modern Law of Real Property (1982);Google ScholarRidall, J.G., Introduction to Land Law (1988).Google Scholar

87. Maudsley and Burn, ibid., pp. 41–46; Cheshire and Burn, ibid., pp. 98–99; Riddall, ibid., pp. 432, 439–441.

88. See Gamer, J.F., Local Land Charges (1982);Google ScholarVan Rossum, , op. cit. n. 55, pp. 258–261.Google Scholar

89. Maudsley, and Burn, , op. cit n. 86, pp. 46–51;Google ScholarGamer, , op. cit. n. 88, pp. 78–84;Google ScholarAnnand, and Cain, , op. cit. n. 68, pp. 7–17;Google ScholarRiddal, , op. cit. n. 86, pp. 441–442.Google Scholar

90. Van Rossum, , op. cit. n. 55, pp. 291–294.Google Scholar