Chapter 7: Misrepresentation

Question 1

What is misrepresentation?

Answer 1

Misrepresentation is a vitating factor. These are circumstances that can lead to a contract being held as void or voidable

Question 2

What is the purpose of misrepresentation?

Answer 2

It concerns the effect of express statements made prior to entering a contract.

These consists of 4 different statements that caused the party to enter into contract, and the actions that can be brought to court

Question 3

What are the 4 statements made prior that may cause the party to enter into contract. And what are the actions that can be brought against them to court?

Answer 3

1. Terms - Some of these statements would end up as part of the contract (Action for breach of contract)
2. Representation - Statements made during negotiations/pre-contract statement that entice the other party to enter contract (Action for misrepresentation)
3. Mere puff - Sales talk/exaggerated statements (Not actionable)
4. Collateral terms (Like an action for breach of warranty)

Question 4

What are the disctinctions between the statements made prior

Answer 4

Terms

• Remedy lies for Breach of Contract

Repressentation

• Remedies available for Misrepresentation

Question 5

What is the act that gave more remedies to Misrepresentation

Answer 5

Misrepresentation Act 1967

Question 6

What was the situation before the Misrepresentation Act 1967

Answer 6

• There were limited remedies for Misrepresentation
• If there was a statement, the person would rather bring the terms, as a course of action
• This would increase their chances to get a remedy as breach of contract had more remedies

Question 7

What happened after the Misrepresentation Act 1967?

Answer 7

• Everything then changed due to this Act - Today, it doesn’t really matter which problem you bring to court
• Section 2 of MA 1967 - Allows much more extensive remedies in damages for misrepresentation
• Section 1(a) of MA 1967 - Provides that a contract may be rescinded (revoked) for misrepresentation, even if the misrepresentation is also a term of the contract

Question 8

How should Misrepresentation structured?

Answer 8

Actionable misrepresentation

1. Unambiguous false statements of fact or law
2. Addressed to the other party
3. Induced him to enter into the contract

Types of misrepresentation

1. Fraudulent misrepresentation
2. Negligent misrepresentation at common law
3. Negligent misrepresentation under Section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967
4. Innocent Misrepresentation

Remedies (determined by the type of misrepresentation)

1. Damages
2. Recission

Question 9

What is the contractual cartography test? What case laid down the rules?

Answer 9

When judges not sure, there can refer to certain guidelines to help them decide (not mandatory/just guidelines)

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton (1913) Lord Moulton

• It all depends on the intention (objectively ascertained) of the parties
  Whether their words and conduct indicate to a reasonable person that the statement was intended to be mere representation or, alternatively, that it was intended to be a contractual term

Question 10

What are the 5 guidelines that judges could refer to by the Contractual Cartography Test?

Answer 10

1. The importance of the statements to the parties
2. The relative degree of knowledge / skill between the parties
3. Was the statement reduced in writing
4. The time the statement was made
5. Accepting responsibility / advising on verification

Question 11

What are 3 scenarios with cases that put the importance of the statements to the parties

Answer 11

1. When buyer puts extreme importance on the statement, and would have not entered into contract if it was untrue (Bannerman v White (1861))
2. Where buyer specifically ask the seller to confirm a statement in the catalogue before the sale (Couchman v Hill (1947))
3. Where the statement was made not in the same transaction as the sale, this would most likely not be a term (Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854))

Question 12

What is the principle regarding, the relative degree of knowledge / skill between the parties

Answer 12

• When a person is more skilled and has special knowledge than the other party. If so, then judges are more inclined to infer the statement as a term.
• Contrarily, the degree of knowledge is the same, then it is treated as representation

Question 13

What are the cases for The relative degree of knowledge / skill between the parties

Answer 13

Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) - Representation

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Motors Ltd (1965)

Question 14

Oscar Chess v Williams (1957)

Answer 14

Facts

1. C brought a second-hand Morris car on the basis it was the 1948 model
2. C asked for the brand new Hillman Minx that was purchased from Oscar Chess
3. D stated that it was in fact the 1948 model, and on the basis that Oscar Chess offered £290 off the purchase price
4. 8 months later found out that it was a 1939 model, that was worth much less

Held

1. The statement relating to the age of the car was not a term, but representation

representation

Question 15

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Motors Ltd (1965)

The relative degree of knowledge / skill between the parties

Answer 15

Facts

1. Dick Bently knew the D, which was a car trader had a greater knowledge than the C
2. C asked D to look out for a well vetted Bentley car
3. D told him that the car had been owned by a German Baron, and had been fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox and had only done 20,000 miles since the replacement
4. Turns out it did about 100,000 miles since the refit

Held

1. It was a term, as Mr Smith had greater expertise and the claimant relied on it

term

Question 16

What is the ‘rule’ called for whether the statement was reduced in writing

Answer 16

Parole evidence rule

• Oral evidence is inadmissible (not valid) and the PCS cannot adduce extrinsic evidence to add to vary or contradict written document

Question 17

What are the 2 scenarios and cases for whether the statement was reduced in writing?

Answer 17

Statement put in writing, then it is more likely to be terms

• Routledge v McKay (1954) - Representation

Also possible that terms are written & oral. In this case, whatever is written then is terms, whatever is oral is representation

• Birch v Paramount Estates (1956) - Term

Question 18

What is the principle of ‘The time the statement was made - Any time lag between the making of the statement and the eventual conclusion of the contract’

Answer 18

Intervals between the time the statements made, and the contract entered into must be taken into account - Routledge v McKay (1954)

1. Statement that was made at the start/beginning of negotiations (Highly likely representation)
2. If it’s during or very close to the negotiation (Then it would be terms) -Seen in Schawel v Reade (1913)

Question 19

What is the issue of accepting resonsibility/advising on verification. What are 2 cases?

Answer 19

Whether the statement was accompanied by a recommendation that it be verified

• Ecay v Godefroy (1947)
• Shawel v Reade [1913]

Question 20

Ecay v Godefroy (1947)

Answer 20

Facts

1. Plaintiff said motor cruiser was sound
2. Allowed the D to go check the boat by himself

Takeaway

1. In this case, he made no responsibility, thus it was misrepresentation

Question 21

Shawel v Reade [1913]

Answer 21

Facts

1. C wanted to buy a stud (high-class horse)
2. D told C that if there were any problems with the horse then he would tell the C (he put trust on him)
3. Horse was totally unfit for stud purposes

Takeaway

1. Statements spoken can be misrepresentation

Question 22

What is an actionable misrepresentation?

Answer 22

Must be an unambiguous false statement of existing fact or law which was addressed to the other party which induces him to enter into the contract

Question 23

What are the 4 parts to prove the 1st element of actionable misrepresentation?

Answer 23

1. It must be unambiguous
2. Representation must be made false
3. There must be a statement made
4. Fact or law

Question 24

What is meant by ‘statement must be unambiguous’? What is the case that supports this rule?

1st part - actioanble misrep

Answer 24

A degree of certainty is required, statement has to be clear

• Dimmock v Hallett [1886]
• Where the land was described as ‘improvable’

Question 25

What is meant by 'representation must be made false' case? ## Footnote 2nd part - actionable misrep

Answer 25

1. Total untruth 2. Half truths (**Dimmock v Hallett**) 3. Change in circumstances (**With v O'Flanagan (1936)**; **Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV [2000]**; **Shankland & Co. v Robinson & Co – Lord Dunedin**)

Question 26

What is meant by 'there must be a statement made'? What is the general rule? What case supports this? What is the exception? ## Footnote 3rd part - actionable misrep

Answer 26

General rule * There's **no duty to disclose facts** based on the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer be aware). But **if they do start saying something, then it has to be the truth**; either by conduct or silence (**Keates v Earl of Cadogan**) Exceptions * In certain circumstances silence can amount to a ‘statement’

Question 27

What are the 3 exceptions with cases that silence can amount to a statement ## Footnote Exception to duty to disclose facts - there must be a statement made (1st element for actionable misrep)

Answer 27

1. Silence or inaction in the face of the changed circumstances (**With v O’Flanagan**; **Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV [2000]**) 2. When the whole truth is not disclosed (half truth) (**Dimmock v Hallet (1886)**) 3. Contracts of **good faith (uberrimae fidei)**. Parties are obliged to disclose relevant information, even if it is not asked for (**Lambert v Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd [1975]**)

Question 28

What is meant by 'fact or law'? Can an opinion be considered as a representation? ## Footnote 4th part - actionable misrep

Answer 28

Facts are verifiable (is consequential). Whereas opinions are not a misrepresentation (generally)

Question 29

What is the general rule for representation of opinions? What is the case that supports the GR?

Answer 29

Statements of opinions **are not misrepresentation** (lay person is entitled to their own opinion) **Bisset v Wilkinson [1927]** * Facts - Gave an opinion that the land could hold a certain amount of ships * Held - Courts said it was a **mere opinion** as a general rule * Takeaway - The businessman or seller does not mean he is immediately the expert

Question 30

What are the 2 exceptional circumstances to opinions? What are the cases for each?

Answer 30

1) If someone has an **expertise, skill or knowledge** (i.e.professional) - then can sue for wrong opinion * **Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976]** 1. Misrepresentation. The sales representative that **worked for 40 years** gave an opinion that sales will not be affected, which was not the case (he was expected to be accurate on his opinions) 2) Person expressing the opinion is **aware of facts** which indicate that the opinion cannot be sustained * **Smith v Land House Corporation [1884]** 1. Tenant gave the opinion that he was the ‘most desirable tenant’, but the tenant was actually a bad tenant (didn’t pay on time) 2. Regarded as misrepresentation ## Footnote aware of facts has 2 sub-groups

Question 31

What are the **2 sub-groups** under/for being aware of facts? ## Footnote fact or law - exceptions to opinions

Answer 31

Statement of intention Duty to act in good faith

Question 32

What is the case for having an intention to not tell the truth? 'Statement of intention' ## Footnote Exception to opinion - fact or law

Answer 32

**Edgington v Fitzmaurice [1885]** * Was a misrepresentation as the opinion was a lie * The speaker represents the facts **as if she believed to be true**, but in fact **no such belief is held** ## Footnote exception to opinion - being aware of the facts

Question 33

What is the general rule for a **duty to act in good faith**? And what are the exceptions? What are the cases for each?

Answer 33

General Rule * Recent cases considered the desirability of a more **general duty upon contractors** to act in good faith extending **beyond the negotiation of a contract** Case for GR * **YamSeng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] HC** * **Novus Aviation Ltd v Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC [2016] HC** Case for exceptions * **Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd [2016] EWHC** - Did not need to act in good faith * **Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd [2022] EWCA** - Where it was suggested that even an express obligation to act in good faith would be interpreted narrowly

Question 34

What is meant by 'addressed to the other party'. What are the 2 scenarios that can is valid as being addressed? What are the relevant cases? ## Footnote 2nd element - actionable misrep

Answer 34

Statement must be addressed to the party that is being misled Can be either 1. **Direct Communication** of the representation to the **Representee** 2. Representation addressed to a **Third Party** with the **intention that it be passed to the Representee** (Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney v RH Brown & Co)

Question 35

What are the 6 factors in which the statement induced the party to enter into contract? What are the 5 relevant cases? ## Footnote 3rd element of actionable misrep

Answer 35

1) Representee must have **relied** on the statement 2) Statement must be **one of the factors** which led/induced the party to enter into the contract 3) **Doesn’t have to be the sole/main reason** to enter into the contract * **Edgington v Flitzmaurice** 4) Not sufficient, that ‘he was **supported or encouraged** in reaching his decision by the representation in question’ * **Raiffensen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc.** 5) Representation must play a **real and substantial** role for the claimant’s decision to enter * **JEB fasteners v Bloom** 6) Misrepresentation must be a ‘**material**’ one, where a **reasonable person** would have relied 1. Not material - BOP switches to representee * **Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms** 1. Material - BOP on representor * **Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co. Plc**

Question 36

What are the 4 circumstance where there is **no inducement** to enter into contract? ## Footnote induced into entering contract

Answer 36

No inducement/reliance of misrepresentation if 1. representee was **aware of the untruth of the statement**, it has to be **clearly proven** that representee **knew so** can’t sue/take action 2. The representee would have entered the contract **even if aware of the untruth** 3. The representee **relied upon some other inducement**/made his own inquiries 4. The ‘representee’ was **not aware of the misrepresentation**

Question 37

What is the general rule for no inducemenet if **representee was aware of the untruth**? What is the case that supports the GR? ## Footnote induce the other party to enter in contract

Answer 37

General Rule * if they didn’t take the chance/opportunity to verify, they **would still be able to sue** **Redgrave v Hurd [1881]** Facts 1. Representor gave statements in writing 2. But claimant didn’t check it at the time (failed to take opportunity to verify) Held 1. Failure to take the opportunity, **did not prevent** himfrom **bringing a claim for misrepresentation later on** Takeaway 1. Representor has a duty to tell the truth when they make representations once spoken 2. It is **not expected** of the representee to **verify the written statements** given afterwards

Question 38

What are the 2 exceptional cases for **representee being aware of the untruth**? | EXCEPTION to being aware ## Footnote induced into contracting - no inducement

Answer 38

**Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] HL** * Held - Obiter suggested that in certain situations may be **unreasonable** for representee to **not check/verify** (situations of commercial or high value transactions) **Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co plc [2016] SC** * Facts - Insurance company’s suspicion that the victim of a workplace was greatly **exaggerating** his injury fell **short of an actual awareness** on their part that his claims were untrue * Held - When evidence of the victim’s fraud was obtained the insurance company was **able to rescind the settlement agreement** they had entered with him

Question 39

What is the case for representee **would have entered** the contract **even if aware of the untruth** (even if he is in possession of the whole truth) ## Footnote induced into contracting

Answer 39

JEB Fasteners v Bloom

Question 40

What is the case for The representee **relied upon some other inducement**/made his own inquiries?

Answer 40

**Attwood v Small [1838]** Held * The misrepresentations did not induce him into entering contract

Question 41

What is the case for The ‘representee’ was **not aware of the misrepresentation**

Answer 41

Horsfall v Thomas [1862] Facts 1. Representee wanted to buy a gun 2. There was a defect in the gun 3. Representor put a metal plug to conceal the gun’s barrel (was a misrepresentation by conduct) 4. However, the representee didn’t check whether Held 1. Since the representee **did not even check the gun**, he **couldn’t even be induced/influence** into entering into contract

Question 42

What are the 4 catergories/types of misrepresentation?

Answer 42

* Fraudulent * Negligence under common law * Statutory misrepresentation under **Misrepresentation Act 1967** * Innocent

Question 43

What is fradulent misrepresentation? What case mentions the 3 elements?

Answer 43

Tort of deceit - a deliberate intention to **deceive** the representee 3 elements/propositions - (**Derry v Peek [1889] HL Lord Herschell**) 1. Knowingly or; 2. Without belief in its truth or; 3. Recklessly/carelessly whether it is true or not - without regard to its truth

Question 44

What is the general rule and the case for fraudulent misrepresentation?

Answer 44

If fraud is proven, motif of the guilty person is **immaterial** **Polhill v Walter** * the representor **knew** that the statement was false but made it for the **benefit of his principle** and to **benefit himself**

Question 45

What is the bruden of proof for fradulent misrepresentation?

Answer 45

**Claimant/representee** bares the burden to prove fraud * Fraud is a **serious allegation** and it is difficult to prove * Cannot simply allege unless there is good grounds for it

Question 46

What is negliegence under common law? What is the case that lays down the scope? What are the 3 elements that must be established by the claimant to prove negligent misrepresentation?

Answer 46

**Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) HL** * The maker of the statement and the person relying on it are in a **‘Special Relationship’** giving rise to a **duty of care** under the principles of and the maker of the statement acts in breach of this duty Claimant must estbalish 1. A defendant owed them a **duty of care** 2. There was **sufficient proximity** between them and the defendant (there was a ‘**special relationship**’ between them) 3. The defendant **breached** their duty of care and did not exercise reasonable care and skill

Question 47

What are the 3 principle factors for negligent misrepresentation under common law?

Answer 47

1. **Knowledge** of the representor 2. **Purpose** for which the statement was made 3. Must be **reasonable** for the representee to **rely on the representor’s statement**

Question 48

What is the section and Act for statory misrepresentation? What does the section state?

Answer 48

**Section 2(1)** of the **Misrepresentation act 1967** - Where a **person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation** has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has **suffered loss**, then, if the **person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently**, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true

Question 49

What must the representor prove under **section 2(1)** to not be liable for statutory misrepresentation

Answer 49

When misrepresentation is made from one party to another which induced him to enter contract (actionable misrepresentation), the party making the misrepresentation is liable to the other in damages **unless he can prove** 1. He had **reasonable grounds to believe** to make the representation 2. Did **believe up to the point that the contract was made** that his statement was true

Question 50

Who bares the burden of proof to prove statutory misrepresentation **section 2(1)**

Answer 50

Burden of Proof Representor (defendant) 1. Shifts to the **representor** to prove that he had the **2 components/elements to disprove** his actions (difficult to prove/heavy burden) Representee (claimant) 1. **Claimant** - Prove that **misrepresentation was made** and that it induced the contract (actionable misrepresentation)

Question 51

What is the case for Statutory misrepresentation under **seciton 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967**

Answer 51

**Howard Marine & Dredging Co v Ogden & Sons (1978)** Facts 1. Defendant (representee) wanted to know the true weight of the ship 2. Claimant (manager) said that the deadweight was for each capacity was 1600 tons. Was actually 1055 tons 4. D used the barges for 6 months and discovered the actual weight 5. Refused to continue to pay hire charges Held 1. **Favoured the defendant** that there was misrepresentation 2. Should have checked the ships document ## Footnote IMPORTANT

Question 52

What is innocent misrepresentation?

Answer 52

Where maker of the statement **genuinely believes it is true** and **does not act negligently** (at common law or under statute, as above) in making it then the action only lies for innocent misrepresentation

Question 53

What are the 2 remedies for misrepresentation?

Answer 53

Damages Recession

Question 54

How does damages apply for misrepresentation?

Answer 54

How much damages representee gets back, is determined by the **type of misrepresentation**

Question 55

What are the damages for **Fraudulent Misrepresentation**?

Answer 55

Damages come from the **Tort of Deceit** * Compensation would put the claimant back into **original position**, where misrepresentation had not been made * On the basis of **Reliance Loss** (not Expectation Loss)

Question 56

What is the **amount** claimable for damages for **fraudulent misrepresentation**?

Answer 56

Amount * **All losses/damages** which are directly attributable to the deceit are recoverable (whether or not D foresaw the loss) * Normal rules of **‘remoteness’ does not apply** (e.g. D didn’t foresee such loss possible)

Question 57

What are the 2 cases for 'remoteness' not applying for fraudulent misrepresentation?

Answer 57

**Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969]** **Smith New Court Securities Ltd Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd**

Question 58

What are 2 important aspects to note about fraudulent misrerpesentation?

Answer 58

* Contributory Negligence **does not apply** * **Exemplary/ punitive/aggravated damages** can be awarded

Question 59

Can one claim for loss of profits under fraudulent misrepresentation? What is the generaly rule? What was the case that was the exception for this?

Answer 59

Claimant **can’t claim the loss of profits** (expected profits/expectation loss) Exception * **East v Maurer [1991]**

Question 60

What are the damages for **negligent misrepresentation under common law**? Does the test of 'remoteness' apply? What case supports this? Does contributory negligence apply? What case supports this?

Answer 60

Aim * To put claimant at original position (**Reliance Loss**) Amount * Liable for all losses which were **reasonably foreseeable consequences** of the misrepresentation * Rule of ‘**remoteness**’ (**The Wagon Mound (No.1))** Note * If the representee contributed or was at fault of the loss, damages can be reduced - **Contributory Negligence** (**Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (1992**)) * Highly unlikely, court may award exemplary/punitive damages

Question 61

What are the damages for **Negligent Misrepresentation under Section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967**? What is the case, and what does it state about negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1)

Answer 61

**Royscott v Rogerson [1991] CA** * Courts would treat the damages as if the misrepresentation was made **fraudulently** (controversial conclusion) Amount * **All losses** are recoverable (calculated as per fraud) Note * 'Remoteness' test / reasonably foreseeable principle **does not apply**

Question 62

Can **contributory negligence**, for negligent misrepresentation under **Section 2(1)** be claimed for damages? What are the 2 cases regarding contributory negligence?

Answer 62

**Cannot claim contributory negligence** (as already calculated as fraud) * As it would would cause a problem, as fraud does not take into account contributory negligence * (**Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping (No 2) (2003)**) **Gran Gelato v Richcliff (Group Ltd [1992]** * Suggested that damages under **section 2(1**) might be reduced to include contributory negligence * Held that they **couldn’t do so**

Question 63

What are the damages for **innocent misrepresentation** traditionally (common law)?

Answer 63

Traditionally - **common law** * Damages not available * Only **rescission** available * Courts more lenient, they said representation is a term, and thus a **breach** or the representation is a **collateral contract**

Question 64

What are the damages now for **innocent misrepresentation** after Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967? ## Footnote NOTE: THIS IS **SECTION 2(2**)

Answer 64

Courts have discretion to award **damages** in lieu (instead) of **rescission** 1. Must choose 1 (can’t choose both) 2. Discretionary (not as of right) * Courts have discretion to do what is **equitable** * Must consider the nature of the misrepresentation in relation to the **matter** and **loss** that would be caused to parties if the contract was upheld or rescinded * Depends on **facts of the case** Note * **William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire CC, Lord Hoffman** - Held that D can’t choose to rescind, only could recover as damages

Question 65

Can claimant claim for damages after the right to rescind has lapsed its time for innocent misrepresentation? What are the cases that support your answer?

Answer 65

Yes, claimant **does not lose the right** to claim damages (so long as he had the right to rescind in the past) * **Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries** No, claimant **lost the right** to rescind, loses rights to damages as well * **Govt of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancester House) Ltd**

Question 66

What is recission?

Answer 66

Recissio is available for **all types** of misrepresentation. * Once obtaining recession, validity is set aside, which puts **both parties** at their **original position** as per before the contract existed * Any goods or money exchanged must be **returned** to parties

Question 67

What is the nature of recission?

Answer 67

* Renders a contract ‘**voidable**’ (rather than void) * Meaning that contract is **valid until it is set/put aside** at the option of representee (by obtaining rescission) ## Footnote **voidable** = valid contract until obtained recission (recission) **void** = contract never existed (doctrine of mistake)

Question 68

What is the obligatory process of obtaining recission?

Answer 68

Recission must be **sought by the claimant** * **Does not occur automatically** * Claimant must **elect** or **affirm** to rescind the contract Recession must be **given notice** to the other party

Question 69

What are the 4 limitations/bars to recission?

Answer 69

**Affirmation** * Claimant is **aware** that can rescind, but **chooses to continue** the contract (‘affirming’ it) **Lapse of time** * **Significant** lapse of time between the making of the contract and the discovery of the misrepresentation (unless its fraud) **Restitution is impossible** * Where the good is **unable to go back to original value/state** (e.g. using a car, value has already gone down) **Third party rights** ## Footnote 3rd party rights - refer to mistake

Question 70

What is the case for affirmation? ## Footnote A bar to recission

Answer 70

Claimant is aware that can rescind, but chooses to continue the contract (‘affirming’ it) * **Long v Lloyd [1938]**

Question 71

What are the cases for lapse of time? ## Footnote A bar to recission

Answer 71

Significant lapse of time between the making of the contract and the discovery of the misrepresentation (unless its fraud) * **Leaf v International [1950]** Fraudulent case * **Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd (2015) CA**