Example of Flow Chart Agreement Does an agreement exist between the parties? Is this an invitation To treat?

(announces availability for sale to public at large) Is this an offer? How was the offer made? By instantaneous communication Was an offer made in response? Was offer communicated? Was the offer accepted? Yes greement !o !o agreement "ame form as offer or as stipulated or in equally advantageous manner In writing invo#ing $ostal %ule& How was acceptance to occur? Was a counter offer made? Was it a mere request for information? In writing

When does acceptance occur? General Rule 'n receipt of acceptance by offerer unless !otice of %evocation received before acceptance Postal Rule t day( date and time of posting of acceptance unless !otice of %evocation received before posting

& !ote that the $ostal %ule only applies to acceptance) 'ffer( revocation of offer or re*ection of offer all must be communicated An example of how your notes could look after summarising a topic ready for exams.

+,+-+!." '/ 0'!.% 0. A. DO E!"#C $ !OC#A% A&'EE E("!)

*'E!+ *"#O(1 .H . .H+ $ %.I+" 2I2 (O" #("E(D .' 0%+ .+ ,+3 ,,Y +!/'%0+ B,+ 3%++-+!. 4 2omestic assumption applies in these circumstances1 5) H6"B !2 and WI/+ 44 a) If living together in harmony at the time agreement made 7 "ocial presumption applied (Balfour v Balfour) 8holiday 4 money separated9 (Cohen v Cohen) 8dress allowance9 ,+" b) If separated at time agreement made 7 "ocial presumption 8particularly maintenance agreements9 (Merritt v Merritt) :) ;) agreement 4 later rebutted

/ -I,Y %% !3+-+!." 44 8even in the use of family assets left under administration under a will9 (Murphy v Simpson) 7 "ocial presumption applied 0,6B"< "'0I+.I+"< 8prises awarded9 7 "ocial resumption applied 0=f) (means contrary result) (Clarke v Dunraven) 80lub %ules may be contractual9) (Cowar v Motor Insurers

>) /%I+!2" (agreements between) 7 "ocial presumption applies Bureau) 8lift to wor# and sharing e?penses9)

*'E!+ *"#O( #! 'E,+""ED (In this conte?t rebutted means that the usual presumption no longer applies and the alternative presumption applies) 4 2omestic="ocial presumption will usually be rebutted if the consequences of brea#ing the agreement create a hardship for one of the parties) A DO E!"#C$!OC#A% (i) / -I,Y 5) H6"B !2=WI/+ agreements where separated at time of agreement (particularly maintenance agreements) (M! Gre"or v M! Gre"or) 8wife compromised her rights9 (Merritt v Merritt) 8transfer of property9< 4 $roperty arrangements (Popiw v Popiw) :) / -I,Y "I.6 .I'!" where one member has agreed( on re-uest of another. to give up their established situation (i)e) *obs( house) and move (country to country) to loo# after a relative in return for property or inheritance) .hen the arrangement brea#s down after the move and promises not #ept) (#akelin" v Ripley$ Ri!hes v %o"&en$ To v 'i!ol) also (Parker v Clarke) 8geriatric care arrangement9) (ii) /%I+!2" ;) @oint agreements to enter competitions( eg) . ."( footy pools 4 where one party purchases = applies for = enters 4 and all contribute financially 4 in some way (Simpkins v Pays) , CO E'C#A% A''A(&E E("!

*'E!+ *"#O( #! "/A" "/E A&'EE E(" #! "O ,E %E&A%%0 ,#(D#(& O( ,O"/ *A'"#E! i.e. "/A" A CO("'AC" #! #("E(DED
:

A1

Commercial *resumption applied) 5) Ad2ertisements offering a reward for failure of a product may not be *ust mere advertising ApuffB but could be a legally binding contract 4 i)e) intention implied (Carlill v Car&oli! Smoke Ball Co)( :) 'ffers made in 3est or 3oke may be found to have no intention to be bound 4 if offer is commercially ridiculous ()eller v %ol erman) 8sell watch for little money9< c=f (however) a court could hold otherwise ('yulasy v Rowan) 8share offer at ridiculous price9 4 Held 40ommercial nature( hence presumption (of intention) applies)

,1

Commercial *resumption 4 'E,+""ED rules (*ones

5) greements where 5no intention to be legally boundB is stated in v +ernon Pools) 8soccer pools case9) :) /onour Clauses 7 clause in agreement contains a clause 4 Ano intention to have legal consequencesB (Rose an ,rank v Crompton)

!ote1 It is against A$ublic $olicyB (i)e) the law) to oust the 3urisdiction of the court (an agreement cannot claim to be a contract and refuse the court the right of ad*udication upon its terms 4 a court always has that right)) ;) 3overnment or dministrative offers = schemes for assistance = subsidies are not necessarily contracts unless an ct of $arliament eg (The - ministration of the Territory of Papua an 'ew Guiney v .eahy) 8tic# eradication scheme9 (-ustralian #oollen Mills v Commonwealth) 7 wool subsidy) >) 5Ex &ratia6 *ayments 7voluntary payment( not in return for wor# done9) -ay be enforceable if the promisee (person to whom monetary promise made) gave up a right or something of value in return (/ war s v Skyways) 8premature retirements9) "he following are the notes on #("E("#O( 8abo2e1 written out with an index. "his is how your indexed notes could look ready to take into the exam room. (Imagine that the following is the index to your set of notes 4 But note also that the following is *ust the headings from the notes) .he e?planations and case references should be written out in full at the pages indicated in the margin)) $ 3+ I!.+!.I'! C 2'-+".I0 = "'0I , 3%++-+!." 1

*'E!+ *"#O( 1 .H . .H+ $ %.I+" 2I2 (O" #("E(D .' 0%+ .+ ,+3 ,,Y +!/'%0+ B,+ 3%++-+!. 5) H6"B !2 and WI/+ 44 a) If living together in harmony ,+" b) If separated at time agreement 9 rebutted 9 intended to contract :) ;) >) : / -I,Y %% !3+-+!." 0,6B"< "'0I+.I+" /%I+!2"

*'E!+ *"#O( #! 'E,+""ED 4

(i) 5) :) ;) B ;

2'-+".I0="'0I , / -I,Y H6"B !2=WI/+ 4 $roperty arrangements (Popiw v Popiw) / -I,Y "I.6 .I'!" (ii) /%I+!2" @oint agreements to enter competitions 0'--+%0I , %% !3+-+!."

*'E!+ *"#O( #! "/A" CO("'AC" #! #("E(DED in the following situations14 5) :) Ad2ertisements 'ffers made in 3est or 3oke c=f (however) a court could hold otherwise ('yulasy v Rowan) ;) greements where Ano intention to be legally boundB is stated >) /onour Clauses

A sample exam -uestion) 'n 5C "eptember( rthur offers to sell his antique des# to Harry for DC(EEE) Harry subsequently inspects the des# and says to rthur F.he des# is in e?cellent condition and IFd li#e to have it) .hereFs no doubt that I could afford to buy this des# if I could pay for it in three installments) !othing further is said concerning the des#) 'n 5G "eptember( Harry sends a letter to rthur in which he accepts rthurFs original offer) 'n 5H "eptember( Harry learns that rthur has sold the des# to %ichard for DI(EEE 'n :E "eptember rthur receives HarryFs letter of acceptance) dvise Harry whether he has an action against rthur for breach of contract) 3ive detailed reasons for your answer) .o get a clear picture of related events( it is useful to draw a diagram1 A 5) :) offer H H will buy if can pay in instalments 5G "eptember H accepts offer /

;)

>)

5H "eptember H learns

sold des# to %

C)

:E "eptember receives HJs acceptance

>

!e?t step1 isolate areas of dispute which may occur these are the issues an issue is a fact of a situation that could have more than one legal interpretation) .hat is( more than one law could apply to it) .he statement1 KIJd li#e to have it LJ (one fact) could be interpreted in more than one way legally) It could be1 & an acceptance of the offer & a request for more information & a counter offer questioning attitude is important

.he issues are indicated by elliptical circles in the following diagram1 reas of possible dispute A 5) :) offer H H will buy if can pay in instalments 5G "eptember 4 H accepts offer %evocation of learns sold 5H "eptember H 'ffer /

0ounter offer? %equest for more Information?

;)

>)

des# to %

C)

:E "eptember receives HJs or revocation?

which occurred first M acceptance acceptance

*lan of Answer offered H des# (DCEEE) HJs reply 0ounter offer? (Hyde v Wrench) %equest for more information? ("tevenson( @aques v -c,ean)

H re*ected Js offer open (H intended to add new terms) therefore no contract=no breach

Js offer still( could be accepted

cceptance occurred when? $ostal rule apply? Yes acceptance before revocation contract e?ists= breach !o acceptance after revocation no contract= therefore no breach

Answer n offer has clearly been made by rthur to sell his antique des# to Harry for DCEEE) .he first question is whether HarryJs reply was a counter offer or a request for further information) If it was a counter offer then( as was held in Hyde v Wrench( it amounted to a re*ection of rthurJs offer) rthurJs offer would therefore have terminated( and hence could not be accepted( and there would have been no contract) If it was a request for further information( as in "tevenson( @acques v -c,ean( the offer was still open and could have been accepted) .o be an offer (whether an original offer or a counter offer)( a statement must contain a promise or promises and not *ust a fact or information( as was indicated in Harvey v /acey) "o the question becomes did Harry intend his statement to be a promise to buy the des# on condition that he could pay for it in three instalments? If he did( then it was a counter offer and he could not sue for breach of contract) lternatively( Harry could *ust have been commenting on his own ability to pay thereby see#ing further information from rthur about what method of payment would be acceptable to him) In my
I

opinion( HarryJs statement contained no promises) He did not promise to buy it on condition he could pay by instalments) He merely stated a fact about his financial circumstances and the method of payment he could manage) He was tal#ing around the offer( perhaps see#ing a response from rthur( before deciding how to respond to rthurJs offer) .herefore Harry made no counter offer and rthurJs offer remained open) It is now necessary to determine if and when Harry accepted the offer) If the $ostal %ule applied then acceptance occurred on the 5Gth (that is at the time of posting M !unin Holdings $ty ,td v .ullamarine +states $ty ,td)) .here is probably not sufficient evidence to decide the issue absolutely) It is not disclosed how rthurJs offer was made) Whether the $ostal %ule applies depends on whether the offeror has contemplated and e?pressly or impliedly approved the post as a mode of acceptance) If the offer was made verbally( then probably the $ostal %ule did not apply) .herefore acceptance did not occur until the :Eth( when rthur received the letter) If the offer was made by post then acceptance would probably have occurred on the 5Gth (that is when Harry posted the letter)) If the latter applies then Harry has an action for breach of contract) If the former applies then the result depends on whether rthur revo#ed his offer prior to the :Eth) By selling the des# to %ichard( rthur clearly intended to revo#e his offer) However( as decided in Byrne v Nan .ienhoven( the revocation must be communicated to the offeree) However the revocation does not have to be communicated by the offeror in person) It may be made by any other person provided it is reasonable in the circumstances for the offeree to rely upon that other person) In 2ic#inson v 2odds the court decided that revocation is effective if it is communicated to the offeree by a reasonably reliable source) It seems clear that this has happened in this case( and hence( Harry cannot accept rthurJs offer because it no longer e?ists) In my opinion Harry has little chance of success because either1 a) there was a counter offer( or b) the $ostal %ule does not apply and revocation occurred prior to acceptance)

Introductory "entences #ssue .his question raises two issues( firstly )))))))))))))) and secondly( )))))))))))))))))) .he issuesF raised in this question are )))))))())()))))())))))))) .here are two issues raised in this question) .hey are ))))))))) .wo issues are evident in this question) .hey are )()))))))))))) .wo issues need to be addressed in this question) .hey are )))))))))))))) .wo issues require discussion in this question) .hey are ))))))))))))))))) %aw .he law in this area states that ))()))))))))))))))( In this area the law states that ))))()))))()())))) .he law states that )))))))))))))))))) .he law requires that ))))))))))))))))( .he law stipulates that ))))))))))))))))))) .he law says that ))))))))))))))))))))) We can say that the relevant law is ))))))))))))))))))) Cases
O

It was held in the case of )))))))))))) v ))))))))))))) that )))))))))))))))))))) .he case of )))))))))))(( v )))))))))))))))))) demonstrates this area of law( .he law is demonstrated in the case of )))))))))) v )()()()())( In the case of ))))))))))))) v ))))))))))))))) the law is upheld) .he law is refuted in the case of ()))))))()()) v .he case of ))))))))))()(v ))))))))))))))))demonstrates( illustrates( clarified( highlights( shows( e?plains( manifests( e?hibits( e?emplifies )))))))))))))) .his (the law) has occurred in cases such as )))())P v LLL)) and ))))))) v)))))) where )()))))))))))))()))()) Apply If we apply the law to the present problem we see that ))))))))) In applying the law to the present problem we see that ))))))))) When applying the law to this problem it can be seen that )))))) pplying these principles of law to the sub*ect question we can see that )))))))))))))))) It is necessary now to apply the law to the present problem fact situation) In this instance ))))))))))))))))))) I t c o u l d b e a g u e d t h a t L L L L L L L ) ) H ow e v e r ( i t is not an acceptable argument because LLLLLLLLL Conclusion -y advice to )))))))))))))) is that he could succeed in his action against ((((((((((((( In conclusion( ))))))))))))) can ta#e action against )))))))))) 'ur conclusion in the present case( therefore( is that ))))))))) .o conclude( ))))))))))) can sue ))))))))))) for )))))))())))))) Conse-uences 0onsequently( ))))))))))) can claim that he is entitled to )))))))))) hence he will )))))))()))())))() .he consequences would be that ))))))))))))) would get )))) )))))))))))) ( hence )))))())))))))))))

What is the difference between `void' contracts and `voidable' contracts? Give an example of each. Void contracts are a nullity) .hey have never e?isted and never had any legal effect) /or e?ample( if a mista#e is proven to have occurred( then the court will declare that the contract was void for mista#e( that is( the contract never e?isted at all) Voidable contracts are formed through the wrongdoing of one of the parties) Noidable contracts are perfectly valid contracts and are effective until the wronged party ta#es action to avoid the contract by e?ercising their right to rescind the contract) If one party to a contract misrepresents an important detail( then the innocent party can avoid or rescind the contract) .he contract then cannot be enforced by the guilty party( ma#ing it voidable) Examples of a bare pass and a substantive answer Facts)

A/lorence is a trained nurse( wor#ing and living in !ew Yor#) "he is employed there on most favourable terms because of her specialised #nowledge and she also owns her own apartment in -anhattan) "he receives a letter from her parents( pleading with her to return to -elbourne as they are both ill( as#ing her to return and care for them in their old age) .hey assure her that they will leave to her in their respective wills( their beach house at $ortsea in appreciation of her services) "he sells her -anhattan property( relinquishes her *ob and returns to -elbourne to loo# after them) fter their deaths five years later( she discovers that the $ortsea house has been left in her parentsJ will to the ,ost 2ogs Home( their favourite charity) 0an she claim the $ortsea house from their +states?B .he question could be answered to a bare pass standard in the following way14 K/lorence can sue the estates in contract if she can prove all of the elements of a contract) .hey are offer( acceptance( intention and consideration) .hey all appear to e?ist( the only suspect one being intention) .he facts are remar#ably similar to the case of .odd v !ichol( where the 0ourt decided that although there was a domestic relationship between the parties( there was intention to create a legal obligation( and therefore( there was a binding contract between the parties) By using that case as a precedent( /lorence would succeed if she sued the estates)J plan for the answer( using a > step procedure( would be as follows14 #ssue$ 4 Intention %aw and cases 4 Intention is component of every legal contract 4 $roof of intention? 4 $resumptions 4 commercial +dwards v "#yways 4 rebuttal 4 %oe Q /ran# v 0rompton 4 domestic 4 Balfour v Balfour 4 rebuttal 4 -erritt v -erritt Application 4 +lements of both social and commercial (.odd v !ichol) 0onclusion and 0onsequences 4 "he probably wins and can successfully sue the estates for the house) plan of this nature can be prepared in C minutes( leaving 5E minutes to write the answer) KplannedJ answer is much quic#er to write than an unplanned one( follows a more logical sequence( and covers all the relevant points) %ealistically( the answer would have to be limited to about a page( given the time restrictions) n answer which would attract C mar#s would be as follows14 A.he issue raised by this question is whether or not the parties intended to be legally bound by their agreement) .he law of contract requires that( in order for a binding contract to e?ist( there must be such intention( together with offer( acceptance and consideration) .he e?istence of intention is tested by using two established presumptions) /irst( if the agreement is commercial in nature( there is a presumption that they intended to be legally bound) (+dwards v "#yways ,td)) .his presumption can be rebutted by clear evidence of an opposite intention) (%ose Q /ran# v 0rompton) 0onversely( with social or domestic agreements( the presumption is that no intention to be legally bound attaches to the arrangement (Balfour v Balfour)) gain( this presumption can be rebutted by clear contrary evidence (-erritt v -erritt)) By applying the law to the facts( we see that the agreement has both commercial and domestic elements( so that the presumptions do not really provide us with an answer) However( this dilemma arose in the case of .odd v !ichol( when the court decided in similar facts( that( despite the fact that the parties were related( thus suggesting a domestic or social agreement( the fact that they relinquished property interests and *obs in "cotland was evidence that they intended to be legally bound) .he conclusion( therefore( is that( by relying on .odd v !ichol( /lorence can prove all the elements of a contract and can sue the estates of her parents to enforce those rights as against the ,ost 2ogs Home) "uch an action would have e?cellent prospects of success)J

If the same problem arose as the sole issue in a question worth 5E mar#s instead of C( a more detailed answer would be *ustified) .his could be achieved in the planning stage by going into detail about the cases referred to in the answer)

01/ST23' 4 .ina is a champion badminton player( and is to compete in the forthcoming world badminton championships representing ustralia) "he decides to update all of her badminton equipment( including her racquets) "he purchases four new badminton racquets without strings( and ta#es them to an e?pert in badminton racquets in -elbourne to have the racquets strung at the correct F tension) When she enters the e?pertFs shop( she does not notice a sign which is placed on the wall behind the counter which says( in medium4siRed print1 ) KWhilst all possible care is ta#en with stringing and restringing wor# entrusted to us we cannot accept responsibility for any defective wor# or defective products used by us( and we will not be liable for any loss or losses to customers( even if demonstrably caused by negligent wor#manship on our partJ) .ina could not have read the notice( even if she had seen it5 since she wears contact lenses which she did not have with her at the time) "he left her racquet for restringing and was given a doc#et she placed in her purse( assuming that it identified her racquets so that she could collect the right racquets on her return) .he same words which appeared on the notice behind the counter were also printed on the doc#ed in very fine( but legible( print on the bottom of the doc#et) few days later( .ina collected her racquets which appeared to be correctly strung( paid the costs of restringing( pac#ed the racquets with her other gear and left for the world championships overseas) Whilst competing in the first round of competition( the strings in .inaJs racquet bro#e) "he selected two replacement racquets in turn and the strings also bro#e) "he was eliminated form the first round of the championships) Naluable endorsements totalling D:E(EEE which .ina would have received if she had played in the finals were thus lost and all observers agreed that .inaJs poor performance was directly attributable to her faulty racquets( which had been strung with defective material) "ubsequent testing of the strings showed that they were suitable for squash racquets( but not for badminton racquets( and they should never have been used by the person stringing the racquets for .ina) .ina see#s your advice) 0an she successfully sue the racquet stringer for the D:E(EEE which she has clearly lost as a result of his faulty wor#? dvise .ina)

+?clusion 0lauses #ssue 0an .ina successfully sue the racquet restringer for damages( or can he rely upon the e?clusion clause displayed on the premises and printed on the doc#et to defeat .inaFs claim? %aw < Cases 0ourts adopt a hostile attitude to e?clusion clauses and( where possible( interpret them Fcontra proferentumF( but they nevertheless ac#nowledge that parties are free to enter into contracts upon whatever terms they choose) It follows that( if a person enters knowingly into a contract which contains an e?clusion clause which potentially defeats that personFs contractual rights on breach of the contract( then he must suffer the consequences of his action) .he #ey word in this summary is =knowingly=( since the question of #nowledge will be tested ob*ectively by reference to a Freasonable

5E

personF) .he question thus becomes =should he have #nown of the clause?F( not =did he actually #now of theS clause?F .his highlights the distinction between actual and constructi2e #nowledge) .he law relating to e?clusion clauses is well defined( but is governed by the question of whether we are considering a case of a signed contract or a case where nothing has been signed by the victim) In the latter case( the offending clause is usually printed on a tic#et or doc#et handed to the victim( and=or displayed upon the business premises) 2ealing first with tic#ets or doc#ets( the court will apply two tests) .hese are the =nature of the document= test( and the =reasonable notice= test) .he nature of the document test means that the court will loo# at the piece of paper upon which the e?clusion clause is printed and as# whether( ob3ecti2ely tested( it is a contractual document? Is it a piece of paper upon which a reasonable person would e?pect to find contractual terms( or does it have some other )4function( such as a receipt (Chapleton 2 ,arry +rban District Council.) or proof of ownership (Causer 2 ,rown)) If it does have some other function( it is not a contractual document( and cannot be relied upon) If it is a contractual document( then (and only then) the court will as# whether reasonable steps have been ta#en to bring the e?istence of the clause to the notice of the customer) ( *arker 2 !outh Eastern 'ailway Co> "hornton 2 !hoe %ane *arking> "hompson 2 %ondon. idland < !cottish 'ailway Co.1. If the clause is displayed on the premises( it will be effective if prominently displayed ( ,almain (ew Ferry Co 2 'obertson)( even if the actual customer has not seen it( or could not read it if he had seen it ("hompson 2 % <! 'ailway Co))) In either case (tic#et or notice)( the clause must be accessible to the customer at or prior to the time of entering into the contract( not introduced afterwards( since one party to a contract cannot unilaterally introduce new terms (especially e?clusion clauses) after the contract is made) 8Olley 2 arlborough Court %td1. Application. .ina could successfully argue that the doc#et she was given would be regarded by a reasonable person only as proof of ownership of the racquets( as occurred in Causer 2 ,rown. "he would not therefore be bound by the clause printed on the doc#et) However( she will be bound by the clause displayed on the shop premises( provided it is prominently displayed 8,almain (ew Ferry Co 2 'obertson1. despite the fact that she has not noticed it and could not have read it even if she had) Conclusion .he business proprietor will be able to rely upon the e?clusion clause( as displayed on his premises( to defeat .inaFs claim) .inaFs victory on the tic#et aspect of the case is therefore academic) Conse-uences It would be pointless for .ina to sue)

Another -uestion and the methodology to answer. Ben decides to sell his car) He has owned it for ; years( having bought it second4hand from a care dealer) When he bought the car( Ben was told that it had only one previous owner( who had carefully maintained the vehicle and always had it regularly services by the same dealer from whom Ben had bought it) It had never been in an accident) nd the mileage shown on the odometer was genuine( Ben was assured) Ben #new that) some of the statements made to him by the dealer from whom he bought the car were wrong( since his own mechanic had told him the car had been in a serious accident and had travelled many more #ilometres than the odometer indicated)) !evertheless( Ben thought that 4 since he had been deceived by the dealer from whom he bought it 4 it was reasonable for him to also deceive anyone who bought the car from Ben( and he advertised it as in e?cellent condition( accident free and so on) When @ane came to inspect4the car in response to BenFs advertisement( Ben repeated that the car had no accident history( and the odometer reading was genuine) @ane buys the car from Ben at the price requested by Ben)
55

fter owning the car for only a short time( @ane discovers that some of the statements made to her by Ben were untrue( and she consults you for advice as to her legal rights) ssume that it can be proven that the car as described4 by Ben and bought by @ane for D:>(EEE is worth that price( but that itJs true value (given the accident history and increased mileage) is D5O(EEE) dvise @ane4) T What action (if any) can she now ta#e against Ben? T Isolate areas of dispute which may occur these are the issues T an issue is a fact of a situation that could have more than one legal interpretation) .hat is( more than one law could apply to it T the statements made by Ben to @ane) could be interpreted in more than one way legally) .hey could1 be a term of a contract or a mere representation be a misrepresentation T questioning attitude is important !tep ? re the statements a term of the contract? If they are a term of the contract are they a condition or a warranty? 4 a condition is a ma*or term of the contract that is the substance of the contract) 4 breach of a condition entitles the in*ured party to rescind the contract and sue for damages) 4 breach of a warranty( a minor term of the contract( entitles the in*ured party to an award of damages only) %escission is not available) 4 %escission is restoring the parties to their original precontractual position) 4However( there are a number of factors that can ma#e claiming rescission impossible) pply discussion of law to facts 0ome to a conclusion !tep @ T re statements a misrepresentation? T re they an innocent or fraudulent misrepresentation? 4 an innocent misrepresentation is a false representation( made by a person who( at the time of ma#ing it( believed it to be true remedy is rescission of contract 4a fraudulent misrepresentation is a representation made by a person who( when they were ma#ing it( had no honest belief in its truth) 4 elements required to establish fraudulent misrepresentation T statement must be fact must be false T person who ma#es statement must have no belief in the truth of the statement T the statement must be intended to persuade the other party to enter the contract and have that effect
T statement

remedy is rescission and damages T pply discussion of law to facts T 0ome to a conclusion !tep A 'f ma*or consideration is what the parties want? If @ane wants to hand car bac# and get damages( then she may argue fraudulent misrepresentation or a breach of a condition of a term of the contract and claim rescission and damages) If she wants to #eep the car( she may claim damages for losses suffered as a result of the overpayment) .hus( she may argue that the false statements were a breach of a warranty of a term of the contract)
5: