Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Jason Neyers |
| Date: |
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:24:23 -0500 |
| Re: |
Undue Influence and Innocent Misrepresentations |
Robert Stevens wrote:
Where rescission for misrepresentation
is concerned, the misrepresentation need not be fundamental nor need
it be shared. All that is necessary is that the misrepresentation, however
minor, was in part a cause of the decision to enter into the deal
(Edgington v Fitmaurice (1885) 29 ChD 459). I am not sure that this accurately states the law, at
least not the Canadian common law. For example, Fridman, The Law of
Contract (p. 320 ff) argues that the misrepresentation must be "substantial"
and that a merely causative mistake induced by a innocent misrepresentation
is not enough for rescission (citing Kennedy v. Royal Mail of Panama
(1867) LR 2 QB 580 and other Canadian appellate authority). If this is
correct, then I think that there is some justification for integrating
IM into the law of mistake of fundamental assumptions.
--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
