Misrepresentation

Introduction
 Chuah Tong Yeong v KLGCC
[2003] 6 MLJ 577

representation
induced
untrue
(i) Representation
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177

honest opinion
NOT be set aside
Held … statement was merely an honest
opinion and the sale could NOT be set
aside for misrepresentation
Smith v Land & House Property Corp
Note:
 Low Kon Fatt v Port Klang Golf Resort (M)
Sdn Bhd [1998] 6 MLJ 448 at 454

where has both the object

and the result inducing
(ii) Induced
induced
 Wei Tah Construction (B) Co Sdn Bhd v Law Wun Ing
[1981] 2 MLJ 157
P bought a piece of land from D and alleged that he was induced by D’s
representation that the land was ‘near Sibu airport’. P had instructed his solicitor to
investigate the title and based on this, P was advised that it was a good buy.

Held … P had trusted his own inquiries and his judgment

was based on the solicitor’s advice rather than D’s
representation
Types
Abdul Razak bin Datuk Amu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn
Bhd v Anor [1999] 2 MLJ 500

state of the mind

Fradulent
Misrepresentation
Introduction
Derry v Peek
(a) known

recklessly or carelessly
Kheng Chwee Lian [1983]
Negligent
Misrepresentation
Introduction
 s.18(b)
breach of duty without an
intent to deceive
Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]
 reasonable information
would likely have been relied for entering into a
contract
 someone
possessing special skill1

assistance of another2
 a person
is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon
his judgment or his skill ability to make
careful inquiry

to, another
person
a duty of care will arise
 Duty of Care Arises When
his judgment /
skill / ability to make careful inquiry

to give information or advice to

another person

3. who he knows will place reliance upon it

Summary
Innocent
Misrepresentation
 s.18

he believes it to be true

c) causing innocently
Effect and Relief
Introduction
Rescission
1. Fraud/Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Abdul Razak bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam
Properties Sdn Bhd

not
 all expenditure reasonably and properly
incurred in consequence of and flowing directly from the
fraudulent misrepresentation
take into account any sum recovered under
restitution to
prevent double recovery

s.74 has no application

whatsoever
2. Negligent Misrepresentation
3. Innocent Misrepresentation
merely
rescission

not
Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar
[2003] 3 MLJ 460

NOT to
be put in exactly the same position as if the representation had never
been made
Affirm Contract
s.19(2)
s.19 Exception
Introduction
 misrepresentation
silence, fraudulent within the meaning of
section 17,
if
had the means of discovering the truth
with ordinary diligence
 misrepresentation silence,
fraudulent within the meaning of section 17,
 if
had the means of discovering the truth
with ordinary diligence
What is ‘ordinary diligence’?
 Tan Chye Chew v Eastern Mining

There was misrepresentation and thus, the contract is voidable.

 this substantial company had

the facilities for checking the position at any time

Thus, contract is valid.
Gemkota Enterprise Sdn Bhd v PB Berhad [1999] 1 AMR 235

extraordinary

ordinary diligence
Summary
END