Term
| What are the remedies for Innocent Misrepresentation? |
|
Definition
| If the innocent party misrepresented, then the contract may be rescinded but specific performance that would benefit the misrepresenting party is not allowed, and if so, the other party may resist. |
|
|
Term
| What are the remedies for Fraudulent or Negligent misrepresentation? |
|
Definition
(not for innocent misrepresentation!) is rescission/damages or both to return to what was expected on success, however, the innocent party must show:
1. The other party intended them to act upon the misrepresentation
2. The innocent party did act, and
3. Harm was caused |
|
|
Term
| Show how the ACL applied the law to Samsung Electronics v LG Electronics [2011] FCA 664 |
|
Definition
| A person (LG) must not, in trade or commerce (LG is a business), engage in conduct (Advertising) that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive (this last point was difficult to discern by the court.) Result: interlocutory injunction not granted, as Samsung agreed to pay 80% of LG’s costs as long as LG stopped advertising with the objectionable material. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the case Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Company [1951] KB 805 |
|
Definition
| Innocent misrepresentation about cleaning exclusions; attendant said that the exclusion clause was just to cover sequins (incorrect) |
|
|
Term
| Describe Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 CH D 1 |
|
Definition
| Innocent misrepresentation about business earnings. Binding under common law (parol evidence rule) but under Equity, rescission since it otherwise would benefit the mistake maker |
|
|
Term
| Describe Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 |
|
Definition
| Negligent Misrepresentation: Bank had duty to inform about financial status, failed to give accurate account, and economic harm resulted |
|
|
Term
| Describe Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225 |
|
Definition
| Negligent Misrepresentation: Shaddock asked about road widening, council remained silent, and subsequent road widening harmed Shaddock. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Maguire v Makaronis (1996) 188 CLR 449 |
|
Definition
| aggrieved party could not be repaid for their loss, and rescission was not possible. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216 |
|
Definition
| Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fruit shop takings misrepresented but rescission was inappropriate since business had already failed. Damages awarded. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634 |
|
Definition
| Affirmation: Sergent received interest on payments after a matter of town planning was resolved, so affirmed the contract and could not rescind. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Jones v Dumbrell [1981] VR 199 |
|
Definition
| Dumbrell bought a business and told Jones that his family would benefit but Dumbrell had already arranged a resale previously, and Jones did not share the extra profit (so was harmed financially). |
|
|
Term
| Describe Samsung Electronics v LG Electronics [2011] FCA 664 |
|
Definition
| LG adverts said to be misleading, harming Samsung. It was seen as mere puffs by the court. Interlocutory relief was not granted as the parties came to an arrangement. |
|
|
Term
| Describe ACCC v Dell Computer Pty Ltd (2002) 126 FCR 170 |
|
Definition
| Delivery fee not stated as obligatory part of the price, so total price was misrepresented. |
|
|
