Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

MISREPRESENTATION IS AS THE REPRESENTOR TAKES IT TO BE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

Even if a statement is true in the sense in which the representor meant it but is so obscure that the representee understands it in another sense, in which it is untrue, the representor is not liable if his interpretation is the correct one. (See McInerny v. Lloyds Bank Ltd. (1994) 1 Lloyds Rep 246, 254). It has further been held that the representor is not guilty of fraud, even if the court holds that the representee’s interpretation was the correct one. (See.Akerhielm v. De Mare (1959) AC 789 Gross v. Lewis Hillman Ltd (1970) Ch 445).

– Ayoola, JSC. Afegbai v. A.G Edo State (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

WHEN FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IS ESTABLISHED

So we are concerned with the limited question whether fraudulent misrepresentation was established. In this well trodden area of law, the principles that apply in a claim for rescission of a contract for fraudulent misrepresentation need only be stated briefly. First, the representation must be a statement of existing fact. Secondly, the representation must be material and unambiguous. Thirdly, the representee must show that he has acted in reliance on the misrepresentation. Where there is no representation of an existing fact it will not be necessary to proceed to consider any question of falsity. Where there is misrepresentation it is essential for the purpose of relief to consider whether it is fraudulent or innocent and whether the representee had acted in reliance on the misrepresentation.

– Ayoola, JSC. Afegbai v. A.G Edo State (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

A PERSON WHO HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HE WAS ENTERING INTO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MISLED

Thus, was the Appellant shown to have been responsible for the misleading by misrepresenting Exhibit A as the private placement documents to the 1st 4th Respondents and making them to purchase the shares of the 5th Respondent? To answer this question one must first consider whether or not the 1st 4th Respondents waived their right to be given Exhibit B by the Appellant? In law, persons such as the 1st 4th Respondents who have not been shown to be under any legal disability ought ordinarily to be the best judges of their own interest and thus if they are shown to have the full knowledge of what they were entering into with the Appellant in respect of the shares of the 5th Respondent and proceeded to its conclusion. Then they could be said to have waived their right and to hold their peace forever and thus cannot be heard to complain thereafter. However, if they were not given the opportunity of the full knowledge of facts and circumstances surrounding the private placement of shares of the 5th Respondent and had been goared on by the Appellant and its staff as they had alleged into buying the shares of the 5th Respondent without full disclosure or upon concealment then they could not be said to have waived their right.

— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 1061 | UO – 1 | GO – 921 | BO – 139

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.