Dimmock v Hallett
A half truth, true in itself but misleading because of what is left out, can be a misrepresentation.
Facts
Land was sold at auction, and the particulars of sale described it as fully let to tenants. This was literally true at the time, but the sellers did not mention that the tenants had given notice to quit and would soon be leaving. The particulars also described the land as fertile and improvable. The buyer later discovered the true position and sought to rescind the contract.
Legal principle
The court held that the buyer was entitled to rescind. Although silence is not generally a misrepresentation, a statement that is literally true but misleading because of what it leaves out can amount to a misrepresentation. By stating that the land was let without mentioning that the tenants had given notice, the sellers gave the false impression that the land would continue to produce rental income. The description of the land as fertile and improvable, however, was a mere puff and not a misrepresentation.
Related cases on misrepresentation
- Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232
- 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
- 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.
