Misrepresentation is concerned with the effect of statements made by parties

prior to entering into contract. These statements may become terms of the
contract, or mere representation. If they are terms of the contract then the
remedy lies for breach of contract; if they are mere representations then, should
they prove to be false, then the remedies available are for misrepresentation.
When a statement is made, it could be term, representation and mere puff. Mere
puff are vague exaggerated statements – sales talk which are not actionable. The
court can apply a certain guideline to help them decide whether which are
applicable.
Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton (1913) Lord Moulton held – it all depends
on the intention of the parties. Do their words and conduct indicate to a
reasonable person that the statement was intended to be mere representation or,
alternatively, it was intended to be contractual term.
The importance of the statement to the parties. 1.Where a buyer attaches
importance to the statement and would not have enter into contract if the
statement was not true. Bannerman v White. Claimant, regarding the purchase
of hops, intend to use them produce beer. C had specifically inquired as to
whether the hops received a sulphur treatment. Furthermore, C expressly stated
that he will be unwilling to buy if they have been treated. Defendant assured
that the hops are untreated. Eventually, C found out that the hops were treated
sulphur. Regarding to this case, the court held C viewing the matter that
whether the hops treated sulphur was indeed a contractual term rather than mere
inquiry. The court place particular emphasis that C had reasonably
communicated the significance and the consequence of the statement to D.