Redgrave v Hurd
A claimant induced by a misrepresentation can rescind even if they could have discovered the truth by making enquiries.
Facts
Mr Redgrave, an elderly solicitor, advertised for a partner who would also buy his house. He told Mr Hurd that the practice brought in about £300 a year. When asked for evidence, he produced summaries showing business of less than £200 a year, and offered other papers, which he said showed the rest of the business. These papers, which Mr Hurd did not examine closely, would have shown that the practice was almost worthless. Mr Hurd agreed to buy the house, but when he discovered the truth he refused to complete. Mr Redgrave sued for specific performance.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Hurd was entitled to rescind. Sir George Jessel MR said that if a false statement is made to induce a contract, it is no answer for the person who made it to say that the other party could have discovered the truth if he had used due diligence. A person who has made a false statement cannot be heard to say that the other party should not have believed him. Once it is shown that the misrepresentation was material and likely to induce the contract, the court will infer that it did so unless the representor proves that the claimant did not rely on it.
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
- 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
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.
