What's the damage?
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0313) 29 March 2003, 113(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: In the past a party had to prove that fraud had occurred in order to dissolve a contract that had been entered into through misrepresentation or else seek to have the contract cancelled or rescinded. "Pankhania v Hackney LBC" (ChD [2002] PLSCS 262) involving the sale of a valuable development site, has elucidated the reforms introduced by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The claimants (P) argued that the defendants (H) had misrepresented the status of the National Car Parks (NCP); the judge upheld P's claim that NCP held a lease not a licence as represented by H, overturning the rule that ignorance of the law is no defence. The judge also decided that as rescission would not have been available, there could be no damages either.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66542 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121906-1001 |
In the past a party had to prove that fraud had occurred in order to dissolve a contract that had been entered into through misrepresentation or else seek to have the contract cancelled or rescinded. "Pankhania v Hackney LBC" (ChD [2002] PLSCS 262) involving the sale of a valuable development site, has elucidated the reforms introduced by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The claimants (P) argued that the defendants (H) had misrepresented the status of the National Car Parks (NCP); the judge upheld P's claim that NCP held a lease not a licence as represented by H, overturning the rule that ignorance of the law is no defence. The judge also decided that as rescission would not have been available, there could be no damages either.