Talk:Misrepresentation

Summary facts

What is "misrepresentation of material facts?" --Uncle Ed 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine that this is just a non-legal phrase with no meaning. It may refer to the relience requirement (see article). Bamkin 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it from my torts class, a 'misrepresentation of material facts' is a lie regarding relevant facts of the transaction. The 'material' requirement simply means that the facts being lied about have to be of some importance. Also, note that there is a distinction in the law between facts and opinions. CougRoyalty (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in Advertising

This article opens with the implication that the notion of misrepresentation is only a part of contract law. But my understanding is that it's broader than that - as in the case of statutory enactments regarding advertising, prohibiting misrepresentation therein. Or does the "advertisement" constitute an implicit part of the contract? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the notion of misrepresentation mentioned here suggests it is restricted to the field of contract law. Like many things in the law, terms have a non-legal meaning. Misrepresentation is more of a doctrine like consideration, etc. I don't know what actual statutory law you're referring to, however, but misrepresentation can also be attributed to fraud. Jamesniederle (talk) 07:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

UK-centric

This entire article seems to only describe UK law on misrepresentation. For what it is it appears fairly decent, but it doesn't even say that it is describing UK caselaw and statutes on misrepresentation, and would be misleading especially to the lay audience that this article should have in mind. Moreover, although the law may be similar in most common law jurisdictions, the leading cases and the details may differ, especially with regards to negligent misrepresentation and statutory law. There should also be mention of consumer protection codes. NTK (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which doctrine am I looking for?

I'm looking for the legal doctrine that states that, if you have the chance to assert your authority and protect your rights, but choose not to, then you loose the rights. For example, if an apartment owner tells the manager not to spend any more maintenance on the complex, but then, a natural disaster comes along and destroys the entire roof, so the manager calls a contractor anyway, and the owner sees the contractor working ont he roof and thinks to himself "This isn't what I had in mind when I told the manager not to do any maintenance," and goes on about his business. Then, the apartment owner looses the right to stop that contractor.

What doctrine is that called?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you refer to the law of acquiescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.5.82 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Translation

I removed the linked translations as they were not about misrepresentation, rather they were about forged documents.

"Four types of misrepresentations"

There are NOT four types of misrepresentation; there are only three. Once, there were only two (fraudulent & innocent); but the 1967 Act split innocent into negligent & "wholly" innocent. Hedley Byrne's negligent misstatement is just that, NOT misrep; and Esso v Mardon did NOT "transport the tort into contract law". I see that I will have to do some serious editing, once I've finished marking these bloody essays!! Arrivisto (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose a merger between Misrepresentation in English law and Misrepresentation. There is a substantial overlap, not to mention a need for a rewrite and update. There is a further page, Misrepresentation Act 1967 which is a bit curious, but it may as well stay for the moment, albeit that it needs a bit more editorial critique if it is to stand as an encyclopaedic page. Arrivisto (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)