Misrepresentation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}A [[representation]] that misses. Being as it is an inducement to enter into a {{tag|contract}}, and not a term of a contract in its own right, a broken representation entitles one to set aside the contract altogether as a failure of [[offer and acceptance]], and any [[consideration]] subsequently delivered to be returned to the payer (perhaps on the basis of a [[restitution]]ary action for [[money had and received]]), to put the parties in the position they had been in before they entered into the {{tag|contract}}.
{{contract}}A [[representation]] that misses. Being as it is an inducement to enter into a {{tag|contract}}, and not a term of a contract in its own right, a broken representation entitles one to set aside the contract altogether as a failure of [[offer and acceptance]], and any [[consideration]] subsequently delivered to be returned to the payer (perhaps on the basis of a [[restitution]]ary action for [[money had and received]]), to put the parties in the position they had been in before they entered into the {{tag|contract}}.


That said, modern usage is slack; most folks, not being purists like the [[JC]], care not a row of beans that [[representations and warranties]] are in fact profoundly different things, and treat them as synonymous. for example: almost none of the purported “[[representations]]” in the {{isdama}} are [[representations]] at all. They are mostly [[warranties]].  
That said, modern usage is slack; most folks, not being purists like the [[JC]], care not a row of beans that [[representations and warranties]] are in fact profoundly different things, and treat them as synonymous. for example: almost none of the purported “[[representations]]” in the {{isdama}} are [[representations]] at all. They are mostly [[warranties]].