Attwood v Small
A claimant who relies on his own investigations rather than on the misrepresentation cannot claim that it induced the contract.
Facts
Mr Attwood offered to sell his mines and ironworks to Mr Small and others, making exaggerated statements about their earning capacity. The buyers appointed their own experienced agents, including mining experts, to investigate the property and verify his statements, and the agents reported that the statements were true. The buyers then bought the property. They later discovered that the statements were exaggerated and sought to rescind the contract.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the buyers could not rescind. They had not relied on Mr Attwood's statements, but on the reports of their own agents, who had investigated the property and confirmed them. A misrepresentation gives a remedy only if it induced the claimant to enter into the contract, and where the claimant relies on his own judgment or independent enquiries, that requirement is not satisfied.
Related cases on misrepresentation
- Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
- Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
- Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21
- Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
