Legal Issues of Misrepresentation and Vicarious Liability

This presentation discusses two legal issues. The first issue is whether John Gravatt can sue Sunny bank Pty Ltd for misrepresentation and what remedies are available to him. The second issue is whether the father of Jonas can sue Rapid Couriers under the law of vicarious liabilities and whether he can sue Jones under the law of negligence. The presentation covers the relevant laws and their application to the cases.

Part A
Issues
• Whether John Gravatt can sue Sunny bank Pty
Ltd for misrepresentation?
• What are the remedies that are available to
John Gravatt against Sunny bank Pty Ltd for
misrepresentation?

Law
• A contract exist when there is offer, acceptance,
consideration, intention, capacity.
• A contract is not enforceable when suffered from
misrepresentation.
• Misrepresentation occurs when a false statement
is made induing the other party to make
contract.
• Silence is not considered to be misrepresentation
unless specifically asked.

Application and conclusion
• John Gravatt purchased a restaurant from Sunny bank
Pty Ltd.
• Bank is aware that the tables and chairs on the
footpath hadn’t been approved by the local council.
• By not disclosing the facts it is not an act of
misrepresentation.
• Thus, there is no representation that was made which
is positive, incorrect and false. So, Gravatt has suffered
loss not on account of misrepresentation that is caused
by Sunny bank Pty Ltd.

Part B
Issues and Law
• Whether the father of Jonas could sue Rapid Couriers
under the law of vicarious Liabilities?
• Can the father of Jonas sue Jones under the law of
negligence?
• Law of Vicarious liability - Any liability incurred by an
employee within his course if employment will make
the employer liable.
• Negligence – non-compliance of duty of care by
defendant causing harm to plaintiff makes a defendant
negligent.

Application of law
Issue 1
• The acts that are carried out by Jonas was the acts that are
authorized to him by Rapid Couriers.
• The loss caused to the father should not be imposed on Jonas
but the liability will shift upon Rapid Couriers under the law
of vicarious liability.
Issue 2
• There is proximate relationship and the father is reasonably
foreseeable;
• Jonas carried on the acts not as per the level of care that is
expected resulting in his father lost sight.