TheFutureLawyer wrote:Contracts Question
So, have an exam in a few hours, if anyone has a quick response I'd be grateful.
I'm getting a bit confused as to when I should apply an analysis for:
Warranties vs. Misrepresentation
I feel like I could do either one with this problem I'm looking at.
edited; cause I'm not sure what I'm talking about anymore.
No idea if this helps, but this is my set of rule blocks for misrepresentation:
• Misrepresentation: A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts (159). Misrepresentation is either material or fraudulent (162). Misrepresentation is an inducing cause if it “substantially contributes”; does not have to be the primary cause. (167).
o Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Fraudulent; consciously or recklessly false and intended to mislead. Does not have to be material. Does have to induce assent. If π is in a position of authority, ∆ is reasonable to rely on those statements and a misrepresentation has occurred if π is wrongfully inducing ∆ to action (169 & 169, Vokes).
• Disadvantage: Cannot get above and beyond K value; better to sue in tort
o Material Misrepresentation: Not consciously/recklessly false; is material (likely to induce assent to anyone). Does have to induce assent; K can be voided/excused. Can be made in good faith. Even something made in good faith, if a misrepresentation is material, it is inequitable to allow the misrepresentor to benefit from these mistakes (Halpert).
I booked the class so I must've done something right. Hopefully that helps a bit.