The issue in this problem have 4 problems. This is whether or not there is fraudulent misrepresentation. And whether or not there is the legal contract. At the same time, whether or not the oral evidence rule it included. And it have whether or not the consumer guarantee. Rule- Fraudulent misrepresentation
Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. According to Andy and Douglas1 .An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Andy and Douglas2 states that fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly. And where false information is provided with knowledge, or the persons preparing the information were reckless as to its truth or falsity, the deceived party will have a remedy in damages in the tort of deceit. The fraudulent misrepresentation must be established this elements: 1) there must be a false statement of fact, not opinion, unless the person making statement did not hold that opinion. The statement may be written .oral or by the conduct. While, as a general rule, there is not a positive obligation on a person to disclose facts, exceptions to this rule included contracts of utmost good faith, statement which are only partially true or distort the truth, and the statement which are true at the time of making but change before the contract is entered into. There must be a false statement of fact or law as oppose to opinion or estimate of future events in the case of Bisset v Wilkinson3. At the same time the representation must be untrue. And the person making the representation must know that it is false, or not believe in its truth, or be recklessly careless. And the representation must be made with the intention that the other party acts in reliance on it; and the statement must actually deceive the innocent party- that is, is must be acted upon, although it does not have to be the sole reason for inducing the contract and it is no defence that the plaintiff was able to check the accuracy of the representation and did not. The innocent party must have suffered some loss, although the plaintiff also has an obligation to mitigate their loss. 1. Gibson, Andy, Fraser, Douglas ,Business Law 2014,8th edition,NSW,2014)p438 2. Gibson, Andy ,Fraser, Douglas, Business Law 2014,8th edition,NSW,2014)p439 3.  AC 177
The first question to be decided in this case is whether or not Barry was fraudulent sale the BMW car to Ronald. When Barry said to Ronald that the blue BMW is the best car on the “Auto angel” market for $34000. And further explains to Ronald that the previous owner of the BMW was a little old lady who took wonderful care of it. But actually the previous owner was a young male and car had not been treated well over 4 years and big accident of the car. It prove at that time, Barry’s representation must be untrue. In order to get the profit, Barry sell the car to Ronald through fraudulent misrepresentation, inducing Ronald to buy the car. And it was made with intention that Ronald rely on it and suffered .It is suggested that in this problem, Barry was fraudulent misrepresent to Ronald. Rules- The parol (oral) evidence rule
In the case of an oral contract, exactly what the parties said must be found as a matter of fact, and to this end the courts will admit as evidences is conflicting. Andy and Douglas4 declare that each party may have different view of what was agreed to, and the meaning of what was said.. Same decision has been held in the case named Hoyt’s Pty Ltd v Spencer5 and State Rail Authority of New south wales v Health outdoor Pty Ltd6. The parol evidence rule does not apply to written integrated contracts in some instances. For example, clerical or typographical errors found in the written agreement may be changed because the incorrect term does not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document