Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson
Damages under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 are assessed as if the misrepresentation were fraudulent.
Facts
Mr Rogerson agreed to buy a second hand Honda car from a car dealer on hire purchase, at a price of £7,600 with a deposit of £1,200. The finance company, Royscot, would only lend up to 80 per cent of the price, so the dealer told Royscot, falsely, that the price was £8,000 and the deposit £1,600, so that the balance to be financed was still £6,400. Royscot bought the car from the dealer and let it to Mr Rogerson on hire purchase. Mr Rogerson later dishonestly sold the car to a private buyer, who acquired good title, and stopped paying the instalments. Royscot sued the dealer under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the dealer was liable for Royscot's full loss of £3,625, including the loss caused by Mr Rogerson's dishonest sale. Section 2(1) makes a person liable as if the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently, and Balcombe LJ held that this meant that damages must be assessed in the same way as damages for fraud, so the dealer was liable for all loss flowing directly from the misrepresentation, whether foreseeable or not. In any event, the court held that Mr Rogerson's dishonest sale was foreseeable. The fiction of fraud reasoning has been widely criticised, but it has not been overruled.
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.
