There are four essentials steps to determine whether the misrepresentation able to apply for Contractual Remedies Act 1979.
i. There was a representation which was false
- Yes, in the given fact that the title and zoning for the adjoining property only allow to build a three-storey height building, which is not what B wanted
ii. Made by or on behalf of another party
- Yes, S as another party
iii. Made to the recipient
- Yes, B is the recipient
iv. Which induced the recipient to enter the contract
- The promise made by S, “there you are, you have got that view for life. You cannot be built out because of height restrictions.”
Section 7(3)(a) does apply as it states that a party to a contract has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by or on behalf of another party to that contract.
After section 7(3)(a) applied, the party are allowed to cancel the contract by applying s 7(4)(b)(3) which in relation to the cancelling party, to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented or contracted.
As B thought the contract is allow him to build a building with height that he desired that could get a wonder view. Therefore B is allowed to get relief under section 9 for recovering his deposit of criteria in s 9(4).
Relevant case law: Sharplin v Henderson, Wordale v Polglasse
In order for a party to cancel, the party must fulfil section 7(2) and (3) of cancellation of contract. The nature of cancellation is the rules applying under section 8(1) & (2) of Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and the consequences are covered in s 8(3)(a) & (b).
The difference of claim damages of Fair Trading Act 1976 is where the court finds that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or damage by conduct contravening the Act, the court...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document