Template:Representationdescription: Difference between revisions

Template:Representationdescription (view source)

Revision as of 10:14, 11 November 2020

1,616 bytes added , 11 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,049

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A '''{{tag|representation}}''' is a statement of '''present or historical [[fact]]''' made by one person to another ''outside'' the bounds of a contract ''that induces that other person 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}}. <br>
+A '''{{tag|representation}}''' is a statement of '''present or historical [[fact]]''' made by one person to another ''outside'' the bounds of a contract ''that induces that other person 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}}.
+Note that, being founded on the [[tort]]ious action on [[negligent misstatement]], one of the ingredients of an actionable [[misrepresentation]] is that the representer somehow fell short of an implied duty of care in making the statement: the simple fact that the representation was false is not enough if the representer cannot reasonably have ''known'' it was false. This feels a more significant distinction than it  is: [[tort]] governs situations where the parties, being randoms, have not had the opportunity to document their duties to one another, so the law steps in to help. Where they ''have'', through the medium of [[contract]], the law says, “you don’t need my clever appeals to the judgment of prudent people on public transport to work out how you must treat each other, because you have worked it out for yourselves.”
+Where the parties ''have'' written down their respective duties, but they still appeal to a [[tortious]] standard — which is what they are doing by writing “[[representations]]” into a [[contract]] — as well as admitting to confusion between the laws of [[tort]] and [[contract]]. In any case, where the parties have written down their duties, the fellow on the [[Clapham omnibus]] would surely say that their abstract tortious duties would map exactly on to what they have agreed. Why would he impose a duty different to the ones the parties have voluntarily assumed?<ref>To be “[[negligent]]” under a [[contract]] is to [[breach]] that [[contract]], no more and no less.<ref>This is why the idea of “[[gross negligence]]” is all the more abstruse.</ref><br>