Alternatively, they argued, any contract of employment that did exist could not be relied on since it was tainted with illegality on the ground that the parties had represented to the Inland Revenue that they were self-employed for tax purposes. A contract directly linked to the gambling act itself, such as paying off gambling debts see proximate causehowever, will not meet the legal standards of enforceability.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is defined is the 3-part test in Derry v Peekwhere the defendant is fraudulent if he: In our case above, John the realtor has no indication or reason to believe that the house has a termite problem.
Sole supplier "solus" agreements are legal if reasonable. In this case, the contract will be voidable by Karl because the owner made a fraudulent misrepresentation that Karl relied on and, based on that misrepresentation, Karl entered into the contract.
Rescission is an equitable remedy which is not always available. The House of Lords held that Attwood could not rescind the contract, as he did not rely on Small but instead relied on his agents.
However, the owner is unaware of the problem. Restraint imposed on a vendor of business must be reasonable and is binding if there is a genuine seal of goodwill. This means that only those who were an intended recipient of the representation may sue, as in Peek v Gurney  It is not necessary for the representation to have been be received directly; it is sufficient that the representation was made to another party with the intention that it would become known to a subsequent party and ultimately acted upon by them.
Subsequently, however, their respective employers indicated that they were employed. When restraint is placed on an ex-employee, the court will consider the geographical limits, what the employee knows and the extent of the duration. After picking out the house he likes, Karl asks the owner if the house has a termite problem.
In both cases, the claimants had started work on a self-employed basis and the Inland Revenue had treated them as such for tax purposes. The employers in each case argued that the claimants were precluded from making such claims since they were unable to establish a continuous period of employment of not less than one year.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice  confirmed further that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract, for a remedy to be available, so long as it is an influence. Contracts which contravene public policy are void. A false statement that is likely to induce a reasonable person to assent or that the maker knows is likely to induce the recipient to assent.
Misrepresentation in English law To amount to a misrepresentation, the statement must be untrue or seriously misleading. Although short and apparently succinct, the Act is widely regarded as a confusing and poorly drafted statute which has caused a number of difficulties, especially in relation to the basis of the award of damages.
Divisible contracts are similar contracts entered into by the same parties which have similar terms but can be completed independently of each other.
Norman  ICR 30 which: So, under the Misrepresentation Actdamages for negligent misrepresentation are calculated as if the defendant had been fraudulent, even if he has been merely careless. Undue Influence When one party has a substantial position or power, and exerts such power to negotiate the terms of a contract, courts may consider such contracts equitably void for undue influence.
Here, there is a binding contract because George had no duty to tell Mickey what the bat was really worth.Assuming that the other party relied on the untrue statement and was justified in doing so, any of the three forms of misrepresentation could be grounds for recission of a contract; however, fraud and negligent misrepresentation could also allow for a cause of action in tort, and, especially for fraud, a claim for punitive damages (*kaching*).
Misrepresentation: A statement about something that is not in line with the facts. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: A false statement that is known to be false or is made recklessly – without knowing or caring whether it is true or false – and that is intended to induce a party to detrimentally rely on it.
RELIEF FROM UNENFORCEABILITY OF ILLEGAL CONTRACTS AND TRUSTS INTRODUCTION This report by the Law Reform Committee considers and makes recommendations to reform the law relating to relief from the unenforceability of.
Discover the most important defenses to contract enforcement, specifically lack of capacity, duress, illegality, unconscionability, and misrepresentation. Transcript A contract that meets all of the necessary requirements to be enforceable may not necessarily end up actually being enforced.
An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself.
There are five vitiating factors that undermine a contract: Misrepresentation, Mistake, Duress, Undue Influence and Illegality. 1Consider each giving examples from cases with which you are familiar 1.Download