Tort Law Lecture 8

Deceit

Pasley v Freeman 1789 Plaintiff was a merchant, asked the D to

provide a statement of credit worthness in this case the P
transferred the goods based on the representation that the third party
was in a position to correspond with the financial obligations. It
transpired that the goods were never paid for and it had been shown in
the case that for an action of deceit to succeed there must be an
intention to deceive.

Dairy v. Peak 89 licenses case company deceived about having a

license, but the claim failed because it was never proven that they did
not have the intention not to have the license.

Negligent representations there must be a special relationship

between the giver and receiver.
In deceit there is no requirement or a special relationship.

Nowell v. Poland 2001 plaintiff was induced by the director of the

company to become a name for the insurance company (underwriter
for an insurance company). Mr Poland suffered damages due to
misrepresentation when he became a name. He sued the director, but
the courts said that the director was acting on behalf of the company
and because of that there could not be any personal responsibility on
behalf of the director.

Gordon case 1986 Plaintiffs tried to buy a house from the D, tried to
purchase it under a 99 year lease. House was damaged due to dry rot,
painters went in and painted over the rot. Plaintiffs went in the house
without knowing about the dry rot, which was covered by paint.

Edgington, v fitzmorris 1885 a misrepresentation to a mans mind is

such that it is fact.
the court will look at the mental state of somebody (which is
characterized as fact) the court will examine whether you had the
intention of fulfilling your promise, if you didnt have the intention you
could be committing deceitfully representation depending on the
situation. The efforts to collect money through the addition of new
shares was only done to collect the money and pay off debts (although
they led the shareholders that they would be buying advertising,
materials, etc)
British Airways Board v Taylor BA promised there would be a seat,
but the passenger was refused to go on board because of overbooking.
There was an action for deceit

You can get punitive damages from deceit, but not from negligence
Volcom Metals vs Simmons 1918 D was in the trade of making
machines for the manufacturing of vacuums. During the process of
selling, they made claims that the materials they had were the best,
but did not offer them for sale at the time.

Statements of law dealt with like statements of fact

Armstrong v strain strain was a partner in a firm dealing with

estates. The man owned a house near a lake, he convinced the other
2 partners to sell the estate for him. The house was located in land
that was infamous for subsidence (sinking). The house had been
resurrected from the ground 3 times, the partners only knew of 1 time.
The buyers sued both the 2 agents and the previous owner of the
home. Strain carried the burden of damages on behalf of his partners.
It was found that he was lacking in faith when selling the house. This
was deceit

The intention itself does not have to cause damage

Downes vs Chappel 1996 downes bought a bookshop based on the

representation of the seller. They said it was an amazing bookshop
with reliable clientele, with a profitability of XYZ for a certain number of
years. This statement was deceitful, it had the sole purpose to induce
the downes in acquiring the bookshop. The profitability of the last
years were not even close to being what they represented, the location
was not great, etc. They sued based on the fact that they relied on
the representation they perceived to be true.

Inducement if the inducement has no effect on the mind of the

representee, we cannot discuss about misrepresentation and the
equivalent in tort deceit.
Cheate Contracts? some book about contract law, 2 volumes, good
for learning contracts

Keashe v Venezuala prospectus was sent by mail, the prospectus

had made representations about a certain thing about licenses and the
qualifications of the person who was to construct the railway in
question