Nevertheless, on the assumption that Priya has independently verified the wine's vintage, ''then the representee may be held to have relied upon their own judgment and not upon the misrepresentation.''37 This has been demonstrated in Attwood v Small case of 183838 where ''the House of Lords held that the contract could not be rescinded, since the plaintiffs had relied on their own expert and not on the word of the seller. The fact that the expert had failed to discover the truth did not make the seller liable.''39
Assuming this is not the case and Priya thus did not in fact verify the wine's vintage independently relying on Rajiv's statement, all the requirements for a claim for misrepresentation
are satisfied. Therefore, next it has to be …show more content…
An evidence to this is the fact that 'no year is printed on the labels of the bottles' and so it appears from the facts that the wine wholesaler thus honestly thought that the wine was produced in 2011. Considering these assertions, a claim for innocent misrepresentation would perhaps be relevant. A statement is regarded as innocent misrepresentation when ''the statement maker honestly believes that the statement is true and has reasonable grounds for that belief.''41 Nevertheless, given the circumstances and more specifically the fact that Rajiv was a wine wholesaler, a claim for negligent misrepresentation is likely to be more suitable as the statement maker was in the position to know better but made the misrepresentation anyway. For instance, in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon (1976),42 a case of negligent misrepresentation, ''the statement maker clearly possessed special skill and knowledge concerning the subject matter of the contract. In …show more content…
The reason why it would be more advantageous to Priya to sue under the Act is because ''the burden of disproving negligence would be on the defendant, whereas, under Hedley Byrne, the onus would always be on the claimant to show both the existence of a special relationship between the parties and a breach of duty by the defendant.''45 Moreover, under the fiction of fraud in s. 2(1) Priya is able to claim fraudulent damages for negligent misrepresentation unless Rajiv ''proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.''46 Considering the circumstances, Rajiv as a wine wholesaler is unlikely to prove that he had reasonable ground to believe that the wine was of a 2011 vintage unless the court stresses the fact that 'no year is printed on the labels of the bottles.' Therefore, there is a real potential for a successful claim for both rescission and damages, ''allow[ing] the misrepresentee to recover for all direct loss incurred as a result of the transaction regardless of foreseeability,''47 The possibility ''to recover for loss of profits following a fraudulent misrepresentation on the basis of the formula in Doyle v Olby Ironmongers Ltd48 allowing for recovery
Assuming this is not the case and Priya thus did not in fact verify the wine's vintage independently relying on Rajiv's statement, all the requirements for a claim for misrepresentation
are satisfied. Therefore, next it has to be …show more content…
An evidence to this is the fact that 'no year is printed on the labels of the bottles' and so it appears from the facts that the wine wholesaler thus honestly thought that the wine was produced in 2011. Considering these assertions, a claim for innocent misrepresentation would perhaps be relevant. A statement is regarded as innocent misrepresentation when ''the statement maker honestly believes that the statement is true and has reasonable grounds for that belief.''41 Nevertheless, given the circumstances and more specifically the fact that Rajiv was a wine wholesaler, a claim for negligent misrepresentation is likely to be more suitable as the statement maker was in the position to know better but made the misrepresentation anyway. For instance, in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon (1976),42 a case of negligent misrepresentation, ''the statement maker clearly possessed special skill and knowledge concerning the subject matter of the contract. In …show more content…
The reason why it would be more advantageous to Priya to sue under the Act is because ''the burden of disproving negligence would be on the defendant, whereas, under Hedley Byrne, the onus would always be on the claimant to show both the existence of a special relationship between the parties and a breach of duty by the defendant.''45 Moreover, under the fiction of fraud in s. 2(1) Priya is able to claim fraudulent damages for negligent misrepresentation unless Rajiv ''proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.''46 Considering the circumstances, Rajiv as a wine wholesaler is unlikely to prove that he had reasonable ground to believe that the wine was of a 2011 vintage unless the court stresses the fact that 'no year is printed on the labels of the bottles.' Therefore, there is a real potential for a successful claim for both rescission and damages, ''allow[ing] the misrepresentee to recover for all direct loss incurred as a result of the transaction regardless of foreseeability,''47 The possibility ''to recover for loss of profits following a fraudulent misrepresentation on the basis of the formula in Doyle v Olby Ironmongers Ltd48 allowing for recovery