Mitchell v Valherie – “immaculate style” was mere puff, “perfect presentation nothing to spend” was not
Elements of Misrepresentation
False Factual Statement
Must be able to be presently true or false. Courts fearful of extending liability too far.
Gordon v Selico – Actively did something to cover up dry rot
Smith v Land and House Property Corp – Bowen CJ – when facts are not equally known, a statement of opinion by the party with knowledge is an implied statement that he knows facts justifying his opinion. Desirable tenants case.
Matters relevant to a determination of whether a statement of opinion is a misrepresentation:
The relative knowledge and position of each parties
The actual words used and meaning conveyed
Whether fraud is established. Did the person giving the opinion have a genuine belief in his or her opinion no matter how erroneous?
Bisset v Wilkinson – fraudulent if a) on facts reasonable person would not have held opinion or b) it was not actually held. On the facts it was honestly stated (had no prior experience).
Law - Eaglesfield – not actionable unless fraudulent. See also Taylor.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice – implied factual statement that you hold the intention.
Applied in Ritter.
Old rule – not actionable – Keates v Earl of Cadogan – caveat emptor
Dimmock v Hallet – “farms are fully let” was a misrepresentation because one had given notice. Your silence makes a statement which is otherwise true, untrue.
With v O’Flanagan – Clinic reduced in value between misrepresentation and contract. Duty to make sure statement is correct. See also Jones v Dumbrell.
Making a statement recklessly/carelessly as to whether it is true/false (higher standard than negligence).
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties – Can be fraudulent without evil motive/malice.
Inquiry always to subjective state of representor’s mind: question is whether the statement, as its maker believed it would be understood, conveys a true or false impression (Krakowski; John McGrath Motors).
Hedley Byrne v Heller: A person to whom a negligent statement has been made could recover damages in tort if a special relationship existed.
MLC v Evatt – damages available for negligent misrepresentation. Also per Barwick CJ, no need for special skill (rejected PC).
Shaddock v Paramatta City Council - Gibbs CJ - a person should be under no duty to take reasonable care that advice or information which he gives to another is correct, unless he knows, or ought to know that: