RESCISSION

Rescission was indeed the main domestic law penalty for a false representation that
persuaded a agreement. Irrespectively whether the statement was made innocently,
negligently, or fraudulently, the rescission can be claim in terms of remedies.
Throughout this instance, the term "rescission" describes the procedure of
invalidating a contract and returning the parties back to the position they would have
found themselves in normally. Whatever products or cash that have been traded
should always be given back.

The claimant have to ask for the reasonable remedy of rescission; rescission does
never proceed all by itself. The Contracts usually remain valid untill rescission of it
has effected. In other words,A false statement in the course of negotiation makes an
agreement "voidable" instead of "void." Typically, the option to rescission is
implemented by sending the notice of rescession to the opposing party. Therefore,
according to another interpretation, rescission could be performed by giving
notification to the competent third parties. In Car & Universal Finance Co v.
Caldwell (1965),the judges concluded that informing the police and the Automobile
Association was enough after the automobile seller wished to terminate the
agreement because of the bounced check of the buyer. Considering that perhaps the
buyer had disappeared and was currently unreachable, the seller had exercised all
necessary measures to terminate the agreement.

Moreover, there are bar to rescission which means the rescind right will be forfeited
because of the situation. Firstly. the situation in which one party knows that the other
party has made a false representation, yet continues to perform obligations under
the contract (hence "affirming") Long v. Lloyd [1958]. Once the "dual knowledge"
examination is accomplished, affirmation takes place Peyman v Lanjani. At the time
of the alleged affirmation, the representee must be conscious about the right to
rescind and the situation that right has arisen. Secondly,the situation when a
considerable lapse of time has passed between the period the contract was formed
and the misrepresentation was discovered.As an example of lapse of time, time
span of five years was seen in Leaf v. International Galleries [1950],. But if the
misrepresentation was not fraudulent, a shorter time span could be enough to
revoke. Moreover, It has also been stated that the mechanism for bar to rescission
may be affected by the period at which the representee discovered of his right to
rescind for false representation. (Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd ). Thirdly,
Rescission will not be granted if indeed the exchanged material has been destroyed
or irreversibly combined with other material. According to Clarke v. Dickson [1858],
the objective of rescission is to place the parties exactly in the circumstances they
would have been if the agreement not been formed. Although the material has been
used and yet not absorbed, the deal could still be broken if money can be
compensated to cover the usage.Therefore through out this context, it’s enough if
there could be substantial restitution in addition to a pay to the representor to repay
for the economic damage carried by the representee Erlanger v. New Sombrero
Phosphate Co. [1878] and Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd. [2015]. Lastly, The
situation when the third parties right is influenced by the rescission. For an
example, when products have been sold to a 'misrepresentor,' who then again
exchange those to an innocent third party prior to the agreement being terminated.
The third party won't be obliged by the courts to give the product back to the
succsesor. For these reason parties in such circumstances attempt to establish that
the agreement is invalid and unenforceable because of error.

DAMAGE
A remedy of damages for misrepresentations was very recently established by
common law. Whenever a contract became terminated, an innocent
misrepresentation initially merely offered a compensation for costs paid as part of
that contract Whittington v. Seale-Hayne) (1900]. Damages might be recovered
under a tort claim for deception in which a statement made was dishonest. In order
to establish this, the claimant have to demonstrate that the statement was stated
being aware that it was false, without a honest believe that it was true, perhaps with
gross negligence for determining either it was truth or not. Derry v. Peek (1889).
Damages for deception are still possible but when offered the option, a claimant will
decide to claim damages under the Misrepresentation Acts.2(1) because its criteria
are straightforward to establish. The burden of proof lies entirely on the claimant to
demonstrate that a false statement was made and which resulted in the contract.
Only if the defendant can establish that they had reasonable reasons for believing
the statement to be genuine, they he will not be accountable for damages under
Section 2(1). Howard Marine and Dredging Co v Odgen and Sons (1978). This
could be challenging to satisfy.

One of the most prominent case in terms of damages is Royscot Trust Ltd v
Rogerson (1991). The Court of Appeal concluded that damages under s.2(1) in this
case that it have to be assessed in the identical manner such as the representation
had been delivered falsely. Accordingly, All the damages are recoverable but the
reasonable forseeeable damages are not recoverable (Hedley Byrne principle). The
judge's interpretation of s.2(1) and indeed the circumstance that it seems to justify
prosecuting a negligent misrepresentor in a similar manner as like the fraudulent one
contributed to this judgment. This judgment is quite questionable, and some
members of the House of Lords showed confusion regarding its authenticity in Smith
New Court Securities Ltd v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd
(1997). It has still not declared invalid. This was recommended in Gran Gelato v.
Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] that damages under s.2(1) should have been
decreased to indicate undue carelessness (contributory negligence) by
the representee. This could create a conundrum because Royscott stated that the
damages accessible under s.2(1) are similar to the ones obtainable in the deception
tort. This causes problem because damages in deception are not diminished to
accommodate contributory negligence of the representee. Standard Chartered
Bank Pakistan National Shipping (No 2) (2003)