It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement. Issue Therefore, its being untrue is sufficient ground for the rescission of the contract. Redgrave v Hurd 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1. Citation Hurd Redgrave v Hurd. This can be rebutted by proving knowledge to the contrary of the statement, or express proof that the party did not rely on the statement. Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525. The defendant responded to the advertisement and negotiations followed, in which the plaintiff stated that the practice brought him in … The court held that the buyer had relied on the seller’s word, even if he had the means to discover it was untrue. He said “you examine my books of account to verify this fact”. 26th Jun 2019 Representation However, the judge rejects this and says that the only limitation on suing for a misrepresentation is the limitation period, which starts when the fraud reasonably should have been discovered. Mr Redgrave showed him summaries that came … Year D. 1 (28 November 1881), PrimarySources He declined the offer to check the accounts and took them at their word. The defendant then wrote to the solicitor asking the amount of business completed in the last three years. D. 1 (Court of Appeal). Redgrave v Hurd [1881] Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003] Rees v Skerrett [2001] Reeve v Lisle [1902] Reeves v Commissioner of Police [1999] Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] Regis Property Co Ltd v Redman [1956] Renals v Cowlishaw (1879) Revill v Newbery [1996] Rhodes v Macalister (1923) Rhone v Stephens [1994] Rice v Connolly [1966] Redgrave v Hurd (1881), 20 Ch D 1 Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement. The defendant responded and was interviewed at which point he was informed the business was worth £300 per year. Facts. Redgrave v Hurd [1881] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 23, 2018 May 28, 2019. A lawyer agreed to buy a law office from another based on exaggerated representations made on the value of the practice. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Original language version (source reference: cf. As held in Redgrave v Hurd, if a material representation has been made to the representee than he is said to have relied on the statement by the representor, inducing the contract. In innocent misrepresentations you can only ask for damages if you cannot rescind the contract. The plaintiff was a solicitor who constructed an advertisement titled ‘Law Partnership’ where he sought a successor who he would take as a Partner on the basis that the individual purchased the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argues that the defendant cannot rescind the contract because he simply should have used due diligence and sought more information before purchasing the premises. Country Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Judges It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Redgrave was successful at trial and Hurd appealed. Case Summary In Redgrave v. Hurd, an English contract law case, it was held that, “A contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement. Reference this No inducement if contract entered for independent reasons, It does not matter if he checked the truth of the statement p. The solicitor who was selling said that he earned about 300 pounds every year from his practice. Redgrave brought an action for specific performance against Hurd. Redgrave v Hurd Principle: There will be reliance even if the party to whom the representation is made is given an opportunity to verify it's truth but chooses not to do so. Clough v London and North Western Railway Co (1871) LR 7 Exch 26. This can only be refuted by proving that the party hearing the representation had definite knowledge to the contrary, or by explicit evidence that they did not rely on the representation. However, if these cannot be shown then the contract can be rescinded upon discovery of the fraudulent misrepresentation. In-text: (Slapper and Kelly, 2010) Company Registration No: 4964706. 185 (1876) 2 Ch D 663. The plaintiff was a solicitor who constructed an advertisement titled ‘Law Partnership’ where he sought a successor who he would take as a Partner on the basis that the … Can a defendant rescind a contract because of a misrepresentation? Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. The solicitor 1881 Redgrave v Hurd (1881) Redgrave, an elderly solicitor, advertised for a partner "who would not object to purchase advertiser's suburban residence, suitable for a family, value £1600'. Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Contract law – Misrepresentation – Specific performance. The plaintiff showed documentation showing almost £200 per year and offered the defendant the opportunity to assess the accounts. The plaintiff sued for specific performance. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. United Kingdom Attwood v Small The buyers asked their surveyors to check on the sellers’ statements on earning capacity. The court reversed the decision of the trial judge and they allowed the contract to be rescinded on the basis of innocent misrepresentation. A matter for the court was to establish the extent of the misrepresentation of the plaintiff and whether the defendant should have been expected to undertake further research into the proposed business by having a look at the accounts which had been presented by the plaintiff. Defendant It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement. In-house law team, Contract law – Misrepresentation – Specific performance. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.