Misrepresentation: The Bernard Case

It is the case of misrepresentation of fact. Here in this case Abigail misrepresents the fact to Bernard to convey the contract of sale of business. We here discuss the stand of Bernard in the light of Misrepresentation Act (cap 390, 1994) and the position of Abigail in this case.
Misrepresentation shall mean one contracting party gives false statements to another contracting party to convey the contract. It is illegal method of contracting as the falsification statement influence the decision of another party (van Erp, 2013). Common law does not permit that kind of practices. Party that suffers from the misrepresentation can rescind the contract or may claim damages. There are many ways to misrepresent the fact of contract (Stone & Stone,

Abigail misrepresents the fact to influence the decision of Bernard to enter into the contract. In this case Abigail provided the newspaper article that is past event but she made the statement in good faith. She provides that information honestly that the business does not have any competitor in the market (Oliveira, 2013). However, later she comes to know about the competitor she is not provide the information to the Bernard it is non-disclosing of the complete information that attract the right to rescind by Bernard. Provides the incomplete information and not right the content of earlier statements give the other party the right to rescind the contract (Nervi, 2013). She should provide the information of competitor to the

It believed party use it best judgment before entering into the contract.
However it was settled in case of Edgington V Fitzmaurice 1885 it was held that the right of rescind of contract cannot denied where there are intention of influence the decision is involved. The parties into the contract have the right to rescind the contract where the falsification of information provided to induce the contract (Hesselink, 2015).
The right under the Misrepresentation Act is could not denied that the party have reasonable opportunity to verify the content of the statement. Profit in any business is the material consideration (Grundmann, 2013). Abigail makes a material false statement that influences the decision of Bernard. Here the intention of Abigail is induce the contract, as she knows the true level of profit of business (Grundmann & Ochmann, 2007). She knowingly made the false statement to enter into the contract. Knowingly attempt the material false statement proven the intention of Abigail to induce the