CONTRACT LECTURES
TRANSCRIPT LECTURE 7
MISREPRESENTATION PART 2 Total time = 59 mins 30 seconds
CLAIRE STRICKLAND
Track/slide 5 01.32
We can now move on to discuss whether a false and unambiguous statement of present fact
has actually ‘induced’ the other party to enter into the contract.
In the case of Horsfall v Thomas 1862
the person wishing to sell a gun hid a serious defect in it by inserting a metal plug in it to hide
it. This was representation by conduct. But could it be actionable for misrepresentation?
The court said it was not because the purchaser of the gun had not inspected the gun and so
could not be said to have been induced to enter the contract BY the misrepresentation.
Whereas in the dry rot case (Gordon v Sellico) the purchasers of the flat had relied on the
representation by conduct that the flat was in good condition. In other words, the
misrepresentation DID induce them to buy the flat.
The false statement of present fact must be MATERIAL enough to be said to have induced
the other party to enter the contract – when is a representation MATERIAL?