Claim of Negligent Misstatement
The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of negligent misstatement being raised against Emma by Richard.
Misrepresentation shows the false statement of law or fact being made, so as to induce the other side of the contracting party, to go forward with the contract. There are three types of misrepresentation, one of which is negligent misrepresentation. This is also referred to as negligent misstatement. It refers to the advice or information which is given in an honest manner but which is actually misleading or inaccurate. In such cases, damages can be claimed by the aggrieved party (Yellow Pages, 2014).
In order to make a claim of negligent misstatement, Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1963] 3 WLR 101 provides the fulfilment of four points. Firstly, there has to be relationship of trust and confidence between the parties; followed by the individual giving information assuming voluntary risk; next comes the other party placing reliance over the provided information; and lastly, this reliance was reasonable based on conditions present.
In the present instance, Emma negligent looked at the wrong page on the brochure while providing the information to Richard. There is a need to fulfil the four requirements placed through Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller here. There was a relation of trust and confidence between Emma and Richard as Richard contacted shock-absorber Company which was supposed to have the correct information. By giving the information, Emma voluntarily assumed the risk. And reasonably, Richard had placed reliance on Emma’s information due to the position held by her. The four requirements are thus fulfilled.
Conclusion 1
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that a claim of negligent misstatement can be raised against Emma by Richard. This would allow Richard to claim $ 2000 damage from Emma.
The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of promissory estoppel being raised by Richard against George.
Promissory estoppel is a leading concept under the contract law which stops an individual from going back on the promise which has been made, where the other party relied on this promise (Latimer, 2012, p. 352). The obiter statement given under Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is of particular significance here. In this case, Denning J provided that the person who places reliance on promise of reduced compensation, cannot be allowed to go back on such promise, even when it is not supported by consideration.
Claim of Promissory Estoppel
In this present instance, a promise had been made between George and Richard where Richard was supposed to pay the same rent without the same being raised. However, George demanded addition amount of $3000 for the promised reduced period. Based on obiter of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, this attempt of George would not be successful.
Conclusion 2
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that a claim of promissory estoppel being raised by Richard against George would be successful.
The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of breach of contract being raised by Tim against Richard.
For a breach of contract to be claimed, it is crucial that a contract has been formed. The first requirement in this process is for an offer to be made (Kirst-Ashman and Hull 2008, p. 205). Once an offer is made, the same has to be accepted in the exact same manner in which it was made, by the accepting party (Helewitz, 2010, p. 28). Where there are any changes in the acceptance communication, it is not deemed as acceptance. Instead, it is considered as a counter offer as per Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. And a counter offer results in the end of original offer.
In the present instance, an offer had been made by Tom to Richard regarding buying a particular car for a price of $18,500. However, on this offer, Richard sent his counter offer based on Hyde v Wrench as he changed the consideration value to $19,000. This counter offer was rejected by Tom. On this, Richard attempted to accept the original offer. However, the original offer of $18,500 had expired with the counter offer of $19,000.
Conclusion 3
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that due to counter offer, the original offer cannot be accepted. As a contract was not formed, a breach of contract cannot be claimed here.
The key issue of this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of breach of contract being raised by Martin against Richard.
As stated earlier, formation of contract requires presence of certain elements. One of these elements is consideration. There are certain rules associated with consideration and one of these is that the consideration has to be present and cannot be past. It means that for the promise being undertaken in the promise, the consideration has to be paid for that act and consideration undertaken in the past cannot be referred to. A contract without consideration is not valid, and it is crucial that the consideration has economic value (McKendrick and Liu, 2015, p. 113).
In the present instance, Martin enquires about hiring one of Richard’s cars. Richard then tells Martin that despite the standard rate, he could hire the car for no consideration. This would not be valid in the eyes of law as without consideration, a contract is not valid. Moreover, here reference is made to past consideration in terms of Martin having looked after the car of Richard in August. Here, this past consideration also cannot be used as valid consideration as past consideration is not a accepted in contract law.
Conclusion 4
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that a contract had been not formed between Martin and Richard for the lack of valid consideration. As there was no contract, a breach of contract cannot be successfully claimed by Martin against Richard.
References
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1963] 3 WLR 101
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
Helewitz, J A (2010). Basic Contract Law for Paralegals, 6th ed, New York: Aspen Publishers.
Kirst-Ashman, K and Hull, G (2013). Understanding Generalist Practice, 5th ed, USA: Cengage Learning.
Latimer, P (2012). Australian Business Law 2012, 31st ed, Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited.
McKendrick, E, and Liu, Q (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. London: Palgrave.
Yellow Pages. (2014). Pure economic loss caused by Negligent Misstatement. Retrieved from: https://www.yellowpages.com.au/content/if/extract/contentstore/2014/10/10/14/40/1080864102/1/pureeconomiclosscausedbynegligentmisstatement.pdf
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
