Two Point Of Distinction Between Fraud And Misrepresentation

1) General Rule – Contract damages should put the π in as good of a position as if the contract was fulfilled.

When majority of the people think about the contracts, bilateral agreements come to their mind. As in its most basic form, as bilateral contract is an agreement at least between two people or more groups. Most personal and business contracts would fall into this category. Whereas the simplest way to understand unilateral business contract is by analyzing the word 'unilateral.' In its general terms, as unilateral contracts will involve an action undertaken by either one person or by any group alone. However in contract law, unilateral contracts will allow only one person to make an agreement or promise.

-The Issue: were all the elements of a contract present to make the contract enforceable?

In the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

The UCC permits the breaching party (subject to some limitations) to “retract” his or her repudiation. This can be done by any method that clearly indicates the party’s intent to perform. Once retraction is made, the rights of the repudiating party under the contract are reinstated. The breaching party cannot retract the repudiation. However, if since the time of the repudiation the other party has canceled or materially changed position or otherwise indicated that the repudiation is final. [UCC 2-611, 2A-403]

this case could be an tricky in the court, because in the contract they only

t. P1) An agreement cannot bind unless both parties to the agreement know what they are doing and freely choose to do it.

A contract can either be written implied or spoken agreement between two or more people legally binding. Once contract has been the offeror will have to keeps promises provided in the contract and the offeree will have to follow all the terms and condition in the contract will. If one party fail to follow their obligation in the contract condition in the contract they make take legal consequences.

As a civil wrong in common law jurisdictions, fraud is referred to as a tort. It is stated that while the precise definitions and requirements of proof may vary among jurisdictions, the necessary elements of fraud as a tort generally are

Mistakes- Common: Leaf v International Galleries. Mutual: Reasonable person. Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) Unilateral Mistake: Mistaken Identity- Boulton v Jones (1857) Nature of document- Petelin v Cullen (1975) One party, from within a limited class of people, signs a document which is fundamentally different to what they thought they were signing.

A fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen; the existence of the circumstances at the time of the Treaty's conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the Treaty. The negative and conditional wording of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a clear indication moreover that the stability of treaty relations requires that the plea of fundamental change of circumstances be applied only in exceptional cases".

If a party is in breach of any material obligation contained in this Agreement, the other party has the right to terminate the contract within 30 days; this has to be in writing.

“Operative unilateral mistake occurs when only one party in the contract is mistaken, the other party is or should be aware of that mistake and yet he purports to proceed with the agreement anyway.”

The common law finds that, in the absence of misrepresentation, when parties are signing an agreement it follows that they agree to the terms included . In L’estrange v Graucob (1934), Scrutton LJ stated that the general principle of incorporation of terms is that a party should have been reasonably aware of the exclusion clause at the time of the contract . Moreover, if the contract has been signed, the judge will hold the clause to be bound . In J.R Spencer’s opinion, Mrs.L’Estrange might have denied to sign the contract if the terms had been clear and recognisable . Nevertheless, Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd provides the contrary when an oral statement overrides the signed contract .

The second scenario deals with rectification. This is when a contract is entered, and parties have reached an agreement to terms and these terms are ascertained in a written agreement, but the document does not show what was agreed upon. The sales contract had a mistake of 5% instead of 20% commission. A similar agreement was made in the case of Krupp V John Menzies Ltd. It was held that the common law court of session had the power to correct obvious mistakes.