Template:Representationdescription: Difference between revisions

Template:Representationdescription (view source)

Revision as of 19:24, 8 November 2020

No change in size , 8 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

Revision as of 19:24, 8 November 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:24, 8 November 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A {{tag\|representation}} is a statement of '''present [[fact]]''' made by one person ''that induces another to enter a {{tag\|contract}}''. By its nature, a {{tag\|representation}} is therefore ''not'' a [[term]] of the {{t\|contract}} itself — it cannot be; it was made before the contract came about; it is an {{tag\|egg}} to the contract’s [[Chicken-licken\|chicken]] — although that won’t stop [[Mediocre lawyer\|attorneys]] gleefully adding representations into the {{tag\|contract}} afterward, co-branding them as [[warranty\|warranties]], for good measure. For, if your counsel is [[Mediocre lawyer\|diligent]] enough, you may have your cake and eat it, too. [[Non-contractual representation\|Non-contractual representations]] may provide relief: a false [[representation]] may entitle the party induced into the contract in reliance on it to claim under the [[Misrepresentation Act 1967]] and [[rescind]] the {{tag\|contract}} altogether, ''or'' claim [[damages]] for [[negligent misstatement]] in {{tag\|tort}}.		A {{tag\|representation}} is a statement of '''present [[fact]]''' made by one person ''that induces another to enter a {{tag\|contract}}''. By its nature, a {{tag\|representation}} is therefore ''not'' a [[term]] of the {{t\|contract}} itself — it cannot be; it was made before the contract came about; it is an {{tag\|egg}} to the contract’s [[Chicken-licken\|chicken]] — although that won’t stop [[Mediocre lawyer\|attorneys]] gleefully adding representations into the {{tag\|contract}} afterward, co-branding them as [[warranty\|warranties]], for good measure. For, if your counsel is [[Mediocre lawyer\|diligent]] enough, you may have your cake and eat it, too. [[Non-contractual representation\|Non-contractual representations]] may provide relief: a false [[representation]] may entitle the party induced into the contract in reliance on it to claim under the [[Misrepresentation Act 1967]] and [[rescind]] the {{tag\|contract}} altogether, ''or'' claim [[damages]] for [[negligent misstatement]] in {{tag\|tort}}.

	Americans seem to have a different, and confused, idea about what a representation is, as ably, though a little tediously, argued by the learned author of {{br\|A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contracts}},<ref>[https://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Adams-Eliminating-the-Phrase-Represents-and-Warrants-from-Contracts.pdf ~~here~~], for those needing a sleeping draught.</ref> believing it to be statement of ''past'' fact in a contract for which a party assumes responsibility, whereas a warranty is an equivalent statement of ''future'' fact. Though apparently attested to by no less august an institution than the American Bar Association<ref>Commentary on the ABA model stock purchase agreement, 2011.</ref> this seems wrong, even in the Land of the Shining Beacon on the Hill, and certainly under [[English law]], as a matter of common sense. Warranties and representations both address matters of existing or historical fact; assurances as facts in the future — [[Criswell]] would tell you, these are the meaty ones, for the future is where you andI are going to spend the rest of our lives —are called “promises”.		Americans seem to have a different, and confused, idea about what a representation is, as ably, though a little tediously, argued by the learned author of {{br\|A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contracts}},<ref>[https://www.adamsdrafting.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Adams-Eliminating-the-Phrase-Represents-and-Warrants-from-Contracts.pdf Here], for those needing a sleeping draught.</ref> believing it to be statement of ''past'' fact in a contract for which a party assumes responsibility, whereas a warranty is an equivalent statement of ''future'' fact. Though apparently attested to by no less august an institution than the American Bar Association<ref>Commentary on the ABA model stock purchase agreement, 2011.</ref> this seems wrong, even in the Land of the Shining Beacon on the Hill, and certainly under [[English law]], as a matter of common sense. Warranties and representations both address matters of existing or historical fact; assurances as facts in the future — [[Criswell]] would tell you, these are the meaty ones, for the future is where you andI are going to spend the rest of our lives —are called “promises”.