The issue in this case is whether there is misrepresentation or breach of contract. The distinctions between the two legal issues of misrepresentation and breach of contract are dependent on whether the pre-contractual statement was made on the basis of a representation, or on a promise or obligation to be fulfilled. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach of contract exists if the party does not fulfil his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract. Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. It is possible to make a misrepresentation either by words or by conduct, although not everything said or done is capable of constituting a misrepresentation. These are fundamentally different when it comes to remedying the damage caused by one party against another. A breach of contract would put the claimant back into the position had there not been a breach, and any damages would put the claimant where he/she would had expected to be in. However, if there is an actionable fraudulent misrepresentation, the claimant would be returned to the position had there not been a misrepresentation, thus being compensated prior to the misrepresentation, i.e. as if there had been no contract at all. The effect of an actionable misrepresentation is to make the contract voidable. In the case of A co. And B, a contract was reached in June at the price of £1000000. A legal agreement requires an unequivocal offer and an unconditional acceptance of that offer....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document