Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:05

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Duty to Warn

Dear Andrew:

I know that some of the cases say that concealment involves a positive misrepresentation but do you find that convincing? What am I representing if I fix a crack in my ceiling and I repaint?

The reason I asked my question is that I think that some of these classic cases on fraudulent misrepresentation in the real estate context are really duty to warn cases in disguise, and that the right that is generating the duty to warn is the right to bodily integrity. If that is right then the warning could come on closing (so long as it was before habitation) and would not be a ground to rescind the contract of sale. Does that seem plausible?  

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Dickinson
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 4:55 am
Subject: RE: ODG: Duty to Warn

Concealment involves a positive misrepresentation - Gordon v Selico Co Ltd and Another [1986] EGLR 71.  It is different from a mere failure to disclose, and is capable of supporting an action in deceit.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>