Misrepresentation in Contract Law

Question 1
Issue
In this case the basic issue was that whether Nick had a binding contract with Frank?
Rule
A contract is a legally binding document where each competent party makes a promise
to each other to do or sell or exchange something with each other (Carter, 2011).
Whereas the legally binding agreements are the ones which are framed between at
least two parties either in oral or in written form. One party promises to do something in
exchange for a certain kind of benefit (Cartwright, 2012). A contract becomes legally
binding when both the parties to contract obeys its terms and performs all the outlined
duties with due care. The basic elements of a contract are to make an offer, provision of
the express acceptance, due consideration, capacity, clarity and intention towards the
contract (Clarke, 2010-13).
Intention is a very essential aspect of every binding contract formed in the course of
agreements framed in the social and the domestic relationships. The intention may be
express as well as implied. It was held up very clearly in case of
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 by the Appealing Court that one mom had
promised to provide $ 200 monthly to her daughter if she gets ready to leave her job
and get continued with her studies for the bar. Firstly the girl denied as she had a very
well paid job. Later she had accepted to do so but in the middle of completing her study
she got married and left her studies. (Clarke & Clarke, 2016) The raised question in this
case was that whether there was a legally binding agreement between mom and
daughter or was merely an agreement which cannot be considered as binding. And it

was held that there was a pure existence of domestic agreement which was based on a
presumption which had no evidence to be rebutted.
The presumption can become reattributed if related evidences can be pulled out and the
best way is formation of written contract. In the leading case of Errington v Errington
Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 in the Court it was held that due formation of the written family
agreement which cannot be revoked without the express agreement of both the parties
the mother in law was unable to throw her daughter in law out of the house (Fehlberg &
Smyth, 2017).
Application
All the facts mentioned in the case study are very much alike the case of Jones v
Padavatton. In this case also Frank was concerned about the health of his favorite
nephew Nick and had offered him $1000 to abstain him from drinking alcohol and join
Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) for getting rid of his drinking habit. It was also a domestic
case. But the presumptions were based on the evidences o the written document
signed by both of them which was very similar in the case of Errington v Errington
Woods. Intention was absolutely based upon the presumption of the evidences of the
written documents.
Conclusion
It is very clear from the above that, Nick had entered a binding contract with Frank
Question 2
A
Issue

The key issue in this case is whether there existed misrepresentation on part of Hugh?
Rule
Misrepresentation means the representing a fact or law in a false way which
encourages the party to enter into an agreement. Misrepresentation can be of three
types i.e. innocent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent
misrepresentation. Misrepresentation makes a contract voidable and the remedy is
made available on the basis of type of misrepresentations (Giancaspro, 2107).
In accordance to sec. 2(!) of Misrepresentation Act 1967, a misrepresentation is said to
be fully innocent if it exist in the place where there are appropriate reasonable grounds
for relying on the fact to be accurate. Whereas under sec. 2(2), it is determined that
misrepresentation are rescission or compensations in its lieu and the claims cannot be
made against it. Measuring of damages are done on the normal basis of the contractual
principles (Harris & Croese, 2017).
Application
In this case also it was seen that both Hugh and Donald did not have any idea about the
reality of the diamond that it can also be a topaz one. They had believed it to be rough
diamond which Donald actually wanted.
Conclusion
Thus from the above statement it is clear that no remedy can be imposed against Hugh
in relation to misrepresentation of the fact that diamond was topaz not rough.
B
Issue