From: | Lee, James <james.lee@kcl.ac.uk> |
To: | obligations@uwo.ca |
ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA | |
Date: | 27/07/2016 12:39:32 UTC |
Subject: | Misrepresentation and Rescission in the UK Supreme Court |
"As explained above, the questions whether Zurich was induced to enter into the settlement agreement and whether doing so caused it loss are questions of fact, which were correctly decided in its favour by the judge. I accept the submission that the fact that the representee (Zurich) does not wholly credit the fraudster (Mr Hayward) and carries out its own investigations does not preclude it from having been induced by those representations. Qualified belief or disbelief does not rule out inducement, particularly where those investigations were never going to find out the evidence that subsequently came to light. That depended only on the fact that Mr and Mrs Cox subsequently came forward. Only then did Zurich find out the true position. As Mr Hayward knew, Zurich was settling on a false basis."
Lord Clarke leaves open whether a representee who knows that a representation is untrue can ever succeed. Lord Toulson issues a concurring judgment.
Best wishes,
James
The Dickson Poon School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS