На головну

Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 1, CA

  1. A New Company, and a New Industry
  2. B. The company, the product and the market
  3. Company languages

Mardon was interested in leasing a petrol station. An experienced sales representative from Esso visited him and told him that sales of petrol would be 200,000 gallons in Year 3. Mardon entered into a three- year tenancy agreement for the petrol station and did all he could to promote business. However, the site was in a bad location, and Mardon sold only about 60,000 gallons in the third year. He lost money and could not pay Esso for the petrol they supplied. Esso sued Mardon for money due but Mardon claimed compensation from Esso for misrepresentation.It was held by Lord Denning that Esso's representative had special knowledge and skill which induced Mardon to take the tenancy. The forecast of petrol sales was wrong and this constituted a breach of warranty

Misrepresentation in a contract

False statement of fact

An actionable misrepresentation must be a false statement of fact.

The following do not therefore constitute actionable misrepresentations:

- an opinion which proves to be false

- a false statement of future intention, unless the statement forms part of the contract

- a false statement of the law

Exceptions

There are three fundamental exceptions to this rule:

1 half-truths, which are partially true statements intended to deceive or mislead

2 statements which become false

3 contracts uberrimae fidei which means they are made in the utmost good faith

A

Bisset vWilkinson [1927]

AC 177, HL

Bisset bought land from a farmer called Wilkinson because he wanted to farm sheep on the land. Wilkinson told Bisset: 'If you work the land properly, you could have 2,000 sheep on it.' In fact, Wilkinson had never farmed sheep on this land and Bisset knew this.Bisset later found that the land could not support that number of animals and he sued Wilkinson for misrepresentation

B

Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v

Heller and Partners [1964]AC465, HL

Hedley Byrne (HB) were advertising agents. They intended to advertise for Easipower Ltd and wanted to know if the company was

creditworthy. Easipower's bankers, Heller, told HB's bankers that Easipower were good for £100,000 per year for advertising. They wrote in the letter that this information was in confidence and without

responsibility on our part. HB relied on this statement and placed orders on Easipower's behalf. Easipower went bankrupt. HB sued Heller for damage

C

Williams vNatural Life Health

Foods [1998] UKHL 17

Natural Life Health Foods (NLHF) sold health food products through franchises. In their brochure, they offered prospective franchisees

substantial income. The brochure was mainly written by Richard Mistlin, NLHF's managing director. Williams took out a franchise

but the business was not successful so he sued NLHF but it subsequently went out of business. Williams then claimed that Mistlin should be personally responsible for the losses as Mistlin had made the negligent misstatements.

A.Group the words in the blue box according to their stress pattern.

appeal dishonesty genuine justify legitimate procedure redundancy redress retirement statutory substantial summarize

B. Study items A-E on this page, which relate to an employee who is frequently late for work.

1 What does each item show?

2 What is the relevance of each item to the issue of fair dismissal?

3 What mistakes could an employer make in this case which might lead to a claim of unfair or wrongful dismissal?

Job description Job title Sales administration assistant Responsible to Sales manager Location Cambridge Duties and responsibilities 1. Process orders from domestic and overseas customers 2. Deal with enquiries from customers via telephone and e-mail
Terms and conditions of service Section 1 Hours of the working week Section 2 Part-time employees and fixed-term contracts Section 3 Annual leave and public holidays Section 4 Sickness leave Section 5 Maternity leave  

verbal warning written warning dissmissal

Study the case of Wise Group v Mitchell on the opposite page.

1 What verdict did the Employment Tribunal reach?

2 On what basis did the Employment Tribunal assess the level of damages that Mitchell should be awarded as a result of her wrongful dismissal?

3 Why was the appeal by the employer allowed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the higher court)?

4 What level of damages did the Employment Appeal Tribunal decide that Mitchell should receive?

5 Do you think the verdict in this case was fair?

Wise Group v Mitchell [2003]



R v Gomez [1993] AC 442, HL | All ER 168; ICR 896, EAT

Imagine that you are a member of the court trial. Introduce yourself and describe your responsibilities | Unit II Crimes and Civil Wrongs | Crime categories | Read the article and decide whether the statements below true or false. Correct false statements. | Look at the two opinions below. Which one do you most agree with? | CASE STUDY | Listening | Listen to Part 2 | Unstable situation Discrepancy - the difference between two things | Now use the words to fill in the gaps on the next page. Use one pair of words for each question. |

© um.co.ua - учбові матеріали та реферати