March 22, 2018/in Contract Law, Featured /Private Law Tutor
In Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd  EWHC 111 (QB) the court held that in a claim for damages for misrepresentation in circumstances where it was established that the claimant could recover a profit which would have been obtained from entering into another transaction, there was no difference in principle between an alternative transaction which would have been profitable and one which would have been less profitable than the first alternative transaction. It could not, therefore, be relevant to take into account the profitable alternative transaction but not the less profitable alternative transaction.
In Foster v Action Aviation Ltd EWHC 2439 (Comm) the Court considered a claim for negligent misrepresentation and held that the general test for whether or not an implied representation had been made depended on whether a reasonable person in the position of the representee would reasonably have understood that an implied representation had been made. The court also held that where a representor had made a statement on the honest but mistaken belief that it was true (on the basis of the meaning of the term ‘accident’), this was a misrepresentation not made fraudulently but negligently under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.