Misrepresentation

Non-disclosure: Generally no duty of disclosure in English law - silence will not generally give rise to a claim in misrepresentation, in the absence of deliberate concealment. Keates v Earl of Cadogan (1851): No duty to disclose facts which if known might affect the other party's decision to enter the contract. Smith v Hughes (1871): Suggestion as to whether a man of morality / honour would think to take advantage of the ignorance Remedies assured for misrepresentation - any particular necessity in a general duty of disclosure? Case law for misrepresentation covers situations where non-disclosure has serious consequences (e.g. Half-truths (Dimmock v Hallett (1866)); changes in circumstances (With v O'Flanagan [1936]) ). Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilla [2000]: Action must be taken to correct any misrepresentations. Case law requires necessary modification in the interests of contracting parties; keep them aware of what is going on. Could a general duty of disclosure be too vague? (Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004]: In preliminary inquiries, vendor of house required to disclose 'any other information that you think the buyer may have a right to know'. This did not include a child murder that had been committed in the house some years ago). Good Faith:Interfoto v Stilletto (Bingham LJ)‘In many civil law systems, and perhaps in most legal systems outside the common law world, the law of obligations recognises and enforces an overriding principle that in making and carrying out contracts parties should act in good faith…’CASE: Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Manchester United Distribution Agreement - fragrances bearing logo. ITC granted YS exclusive rights to distribute fragrances in specified territories. YS claimed damages for: late supply, wrongful refusal to perform, undercutting prices, incorrect information Late delivery (not sufficiently serious) Implied term that parties would deal in good faith?

Misrepresentation