The document discusses voidable contracts and factors that allow a contract to be set aside, such as misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence affecting consent. A voidable contract is valid until set aside, giving the innocent party the option to either uphold the contract or seek restitution to their original position. For a contract to be void due to misrepresentation, there must be a false statement made by one party with the intent to induce the other party, where the other party entered the contract relying on the statement, and the statement was material and false.
The document discusses voidable contracts and factors that allow a contract to be set aside, such as misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence affecting consent. A voidable contract is valid until set aside, giving the innocent party the option to either uphold the contract or seek restitution to their original position. For a contract to be void due to misrepresentation, there must be a false statement made by one party with the intent to induce the other party, where the other party entered the contract relying on the statement, and the statement was material and false.
The document discusses voidable contracts and factors that allow a contract to be set aside, such as misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence affecting consent. A voidable contract is valid until set aside, giving the innocent party the option to either uphold the contract or seek restitution to their original position. For a contract to be void due to misrepresentation, there must be a false statement made by one party with the intent to induce the other party, where the other party entered the contract relying on the statement, and the statement was material and false.
The document discusses voidable contracts and factors that allow a contract to be set aside, such as misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence affecting consent. A voidable contract is valid until set aside, giving the innocent party the option to either uphold the contract or seek restitution to their original position. For a contract to be void due to misrepresentation, there must be a false statement made by one party with the intent to induce the other party, where the other party entered the contract relying on the statement, and the statement was material and false.
EVEN IF ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CONTRACT ARE PRESENT, A CONTRACT
MAY BE SET ASIDE IF CONSENT WAS INDUCED BY MISREPRESENTATION, DURESS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE. IF CONSENT IS DEFECTIVE, THE CONTRACT IS SAID TO BE VOIDABLE AS OPPOSED TO VOID. THE PARTY WHO HAS BEEN INDUCED MAY CLAIM RESTITUTION RESTITUTION IS RESTORATION TO THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO. THE CONTRACT IS DEEMED TO VALID FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES UNLESS AND UNTILL IT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. VOIDABLE CONTRACTS CONTD.
WHERE A CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE, THE INNOCENT PARTY HAS AN OPTION OR ELECTION
TOP ONE OF TWO THINGS. THEY MAY CHOOSE TO EITHER STAND BY THE CONTRACT OR CLAIM RESTITUTION THIS CHOICE MUST BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROBLEM OR FLAW. ONCE A CHOICE IS MADE, THE OTHER LATERNATIVE IS LOST FOR GOOD. IF THE PARTY IS INTERESTED IN RESTITUTION THEN HE SHOULD HIMSELF MAKE RESTITUTION. WHERE THERE IS INABILITY TO MAKE RSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT DUE TO ANY FAULT OF THE PARTY SEEKING IT THEN HE IS EXCUSED. EG WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER HAS PERISHED, THE GENERAL RULE OF RESTITUTION IS NOT APPLICABLE MISREPRESENTATION
A FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT MADE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME
OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE INTENTION OF INDUCING THE OTHER PARTY TO CONTRACT AND ACTUALLY DOES SO. THE STATEMENT IS NOT A TERM OF THE CONTRCT BUT AN INDUCEMENT AND NO RESPONSIBILITY IS TAKEN FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENT AS OPPOSED TO WARRANTIES WHICH ARE A TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. FALSE STATEMENTS MAY BE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE REPRESENTOR MISREP CONTD
FOR A CONTRACT TO BE SET ASIDE ON ACCOUNT OF MISREPRESENTATION
FOUR THINGS HAVE TO BE SHOWN 1. THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE WITH THE INTENTION OF INDUCING THE OTHER PARTY TO CONTRACT 2. THE CONTRACT WAS CONCLUDED ON THE FAITH OF THE REPRESENTATION 3. THE REPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL 4. THE REPRESENTATION WAS FALSE IN FACT INTENTION TO INDUCE
THE REPRESENTATION HAS TO BE MADE WITH THE INTENTION TO INDUCE
IT SHOULD ALSO BE LOOKED AT OBJECTIVELY SHOULD THERE BE A DUTY TO SPEAK?? DOES SILENCE OR NON DISCLOSURE AMOUNT TO A REPRESENTATION? WHAT IS THE POSITION OF LATENT DEFECTS? INSURANCE CONTRACTS? A MERE LIE WILL NOT PASS THE TEST UNLESS THE INTENTION WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE ACTED UPON. IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT INDUCE THE CONTRACT THEN THE CONTRACT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE TEST-WOULD YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT IF THE FALSE STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE? THERE HAS TO BE ACTUAL INDUCEMENT. A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IS ONE WHICH IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS WOULD LIKELY TO INDUCE A PERSON TO CONTRACT IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE STATEMENT IS FALSE DOES MERE PUFFING (DEPICTING THE ITEM IN GLOWING TERMS) AMOUNT TO A MISREPRESENTATION? WHAT ABOUT A STATEMENT OF OPINION? DOES A VOETSTOOTS CLAUSE RELIEVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISREPRESENTATION?