Understanding Misrepresentation under English Law: Types, Remedies and Leading Cases

Introduction

During negotiations of actual commercial transactions, the parties often look at statements made during negotiation which may be non-contractual in character to help determine whether or not a contract is entered into. When you buy a business, secure commercial property, invest in a company or hire professional advisers—decisions are often made based off representations as to facts, risks or future performance. When those statements turn out to be inaccurate, the penalties can be harsh — both legally and financially. Essentially, however, a contract that is entered into based on misleading or factually inaccurate information may leave the innocent party with significant financial losses and costly litigation.

In English law this is covered by the misrepresentation doctrine. More generally, a misrepresentation is a false statement of existing law or fact made by one party to another that causes the other party to enter into a contract. The law differentiates between fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation as per the situation arises, each of them has different legal results and remedies.

Anyone in business, entrepreneurs, investors and even individuals entering into commercial negotiations need to know the law of misrepresentation. Solicitors & Law students should have a good knowledge about this too. It is designed to help parties identify legal risks prior to the conclusion of agreements; recognise the remedies available where misleading or deceptive statements are made, and understand how the courts apply the Misrepresentation Act 1967 in conjunction with established common law principles. This is primarily intended as a useful outline of the legal context, the primary types of misrepresentation, what remedies can be obtained and which leading cases continue to influence English contract law today.

Importance of Misrepresentation in Commercial Transactions

Business transactions rely on trust and the validity of the information shared in a negotiation. Acts that engage the value, quality, legal status or prospects for goods and services or commercial assets — businesses have a routine practice of discussing these items as financial decision-makers. Those statements which are false and induce the other party to enter into a contract, may have consequences that are greater than financial loss and lead to undisputed contractual liability, litigation, and reputational damage: in many instances the defendant may find themselves ordered to rescind the contract or alternatively awarded damages in circumstances not commonly accepted as tortious conduct.^[1]

Consequently, the law of misrepresentation is basic to many types of commercial transactions. One of the most influential factors leading a purchaser to continue with an acquisition of a company is if they learn that financial information originally provided or potential/actual liability is not true. Again, false declarations made about planning permission, environmental impacts or rental income could far outweigh in the scale of commercial property acquisitions as well and lease negotiations.^[2] Investors often look to representations made by their advisers and financial institutions to their detriment when investing in the financial services sector, while accountants, surveyors, solicitors and other professionals may be held liable for inaccurate professional advice where they owe a duty of care. In the same way, software and technology contracts frequently include representations about what functionality a system will perform, whether it is free from cybersecurity vulnerabilities, whether certain systems or applications can interact/interoperate with one another, or whether it complies with other regulatory requirements.^[3]

The common law approach of the English legal system provides remedies where a contractual consent is based on misrepresentation, and pursues fairness, commercial certainty, as well as confidence in the market – whilst promoting parties to act truthfully and with reasonable care during business negotiations.^[4]

What Is Misrepresentation?

A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact or law made by one contracting party to another prior to the making of a contract, which misleads the other party into entering that agreement. Not every misstatement will constitute a actionable misrepresentation under English law. The courts will not give a remedy unless the statement meets legally prescribed conditions.^[5]

To begin with, a false statement must exist. It has to be a representation that is objectively false at the time it is made. A false statement, in circumstances where it is true when made but subsequently untrue at contract conclusion, may also be a misrepresentation if the representor does not correct it.^[6]

Secondly, the representation has to generally be tied to a substantive matter of fact or, more limitedly, an issue of law (i.e. in properly identified exceptional circumstances), rather than simply opinion and puffery. Opinions statements are usually non-actionable because they do not claim an objectively verifiable fact. On the other hand, where a person making a statement holds special knowledge or expertise — which of course contains an air of authority about it — the courts may construe that statement as having been made on grounds sufficient reasonable to suppose are ground for holding that opinion.^[7]

Likewise, a statement of future intent will not usually be a misrepresentation simply because the intention is never acted upon. However, if it can be shown that a party never intended to fulfil the intention stated at the time of making the statement then this will amount to fraudulent misrepresentation.^[8]

Silence, as a rule, is not misrepresentation. Under English contract law there is no general obligation to disclose information in commercial negotiations. But silence may be actionable in those three areas where a prior representation becomes false, voluntary disclosure is expected because the contract is one of utmost good faith, and where circumstances furnish false impressions.^[9]

Finally, the claimant needs to prove inducement and reliance. The false representation must have caused the claimant to decide to enter into the contract although it does not need to be the only reason for entering into that contract. No actionable misrepresentation occurs if the claimant knew of no reliance on the statement.^[10]

For example, the sale of a commercial office building with the seller saying that it is fully leased to creditworthy tenants. If that statement is untrue and the buyer relies on it when executing the purchase, they may seek to invalidate the contract or seek damages depending in part on what type of misrepresentation (actionable representation) was made as well as any applicable legal principles.

Key Legal Factors to an Actionable Misrepresentation

Not every misrepresentation made at the time of contract negotiations is exposed to maximum liability. In order for a claim to succeed as an actionable misrepresentation in the eyes of a court, several essential legal elements must be satisfied by the claimant. These requirements guarantee that liability only arises in the case where a false representation has actually influenced the victim's contractual decision-making process.

The first condition is false representation. It must be objectively false when made and before the contract is completed or has been corrected. Simply puffery, sales hype or statements that are literally true will therefore usually not meet this standard.^[11]

Secondly, it must be of a matter that is an existing fact or, when appropriate circumstances require it, an existing point of lawrather than opinion, speculation or intention for future action. It is learned that the courts make a distinction between statements that are capable of testable assertion and statements which express belief or expectation.^[12]

Material representation: The representation must also have materiality, such that it is capable of affecting the judgment of a reasonable person when determining whether to enter into the contract. Materiality alone is not enough, nonetheless it provides valuable evidence that the misrepresentation was able to influence the contracting decision.^[13]

The claimant also needs to show inducement and reliance. That the misrepresentation has been relied upon in a way that is not trivial and made a difference to entering into the contract. Not having or because of entering the agreement must not be the only reason within itself but must have been a material factor. No duty to speak or abstain from speaking misrepresentation based on silence will come into being if no reliance was placed upon a statement and no knowledge of the representation by the claimant.^[14]

The claimant, not the defendant, has to prove that the representation was made (as well as its falsity and that it was relied on). However, in the case of liability under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the onus shifts to the representor to prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.^[15] This statutory reversal departs from the common law position on negligent misrepresentation, and it bolsters protection for contracting parties.

Types of Misrepresentation

There are three types of misrepresentation in English law, as outlined below: fraudulent, negligent and innocent. The main contention is that whilst each involves a misrepresentation inducing the other party to enter into a contract, there are significant differences in terms of the representor's state of mind, as well as applicable legal principles, burden of proof and available remedies. The reason these differences are important is because they often dictate whether the aggrieved party receives a remedy in the form of (1) rescission, (2) damages or (3) both.^[16]

Next for the different broad classes an overview followed by a deep dive into each one in its own guide.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Fraudulent misrepresentation is the most serious level of misrepresentation recognised in English law. It arises where a party intentionally expresses an untruth, says the thing without conviction that it is true, or acts in disregard as to whether it is false or true, with the intention that the other party will act upon such when entering into a contract. Since fraud is intentional dishonesty or conscious recklessness, the law imposes greater penalties than if the representation was negligent or innocent.^[17]

The law itself was established by the House of Lords in Derry v Peek, where Lord Herschell stated that fraud is made out when a false representation has been made either knowingly or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as carelessly whether it be true or false.^[18] This definition forms the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation and is still used by courts in England. Most importantly, a careless or groundsless statement will not by itself prove fraud; the claimant must show that when that representation was made, the representor had no honest belief in its truth.

In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation being established, and unless otherwise stated, an innocent party is able to rescind the contract and recover damages in tort for deceit. The courts take an expansive view of compensation in these matters, and try to put the claimant back in the position he would have been but for the fraudulent misrepresentation.^[19] This reveals the compelling public policy of the law which prohibits dishonest behavior in trade.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Negligent misrepresentation lies between fraud and innocence. Whereas with fraudulent misrepresentation you have to prove that it was done dishonestly, this is not necessary to demonstrate in a case of negligent misrepresentation. Instead, a party is liable where he makes a false representation without taking the requisite standard of care applicable in the event. Negligent Misrepresentation is recognised under both common law in England, through the tort of negligent misstatement, and by section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 which grants a significant statutory remedy to contracting parties.^[20]

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd was a particularly important such case, in which the House of Lords recognised that negligent statements causing economic loss could lead to liability if there was a relationship capable of establishing a duty of care.^[21] Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 1069 was the first authority to specifically address the way section 2(1) of the Act worked and held that is a defence onus for representor to demonstrate it has reasonable grounds for believing representation was true.^[22]

Negligent misrepresentation is thus important for the protection of individuals when false statements come about through careless behaviour rather than intentional deceit. If the innocent party rules in this procedure, damages will be awarded and rescission of the contract may occur.

Innocent Misrepresentation

This is where innocent misrepresentation comes into play and occurs when a false representation is made. It is an honest attempt to convey factual information that can be supported by reasonable ground without any fraud or negligence. Even if the representor has committed no fault, the law acknowledges that the innocent party nevertheless may have entered into the contract based on false information. Thus, the law of England is still all about providing remedies that seek to make the two contracting parties fair.^[23]

Rescission is the primary remedy for innocent misrepresentation, which seeks to place the parties back in their position before the contract was made. Nevertheless, in appropriate cases s 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 enables the court to award damages in lieu of rescission where it feels that doing so is a more just remedy.^[24] The exercise of that discretion will turn on, among other things, the gravity of the misrepresentation, the character of the loss it caused and what would be practical consequences if the contract were set aside.

Purely innocent misrepresentation, on the other hand, is generally held to be the least blameworthy category but you can still cause a significant commercial impact where consent has been obtained by means of false information.

Remedies for Misrepresentation

English law has a variety of remedies that aim to put an innocent party back into a reasonable legal position where an actionable misrepresentation has induced the party into contracting. The remedy which will be available will depend upon the type of misrepresentation, the facts of the case and whether rescission is still practically available. The main remedies are rescission, damages, indemnity and (in certain cases) damages in lieu of rescission under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.^[25]

Rescission

Misrepresentation is the main reason for rescission. It aims to ignore the contract but return both parties (as far as possible) to where they were before the contract was made (restitutio in integrum). Upon cancelling a contract, the parties are placed in the same situation as if they were never under that contractual obligation and thus must return benefits received under the contract to each other.^[26] This point bears repeating: rescission offers and, therefore, is available for fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation—but its availability may be limited where restoration becomes impossible or there are other legal impediments preventing the right to rescind.

Damages

Damages are measures agreed to restore the innocent party in a position they would have been in had the misrepresentation not occurred. The nature of recovery operates differently depending on the kind of misrepresentation found. Typically in tort of deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation will give rise to the widest measure of damages while negligent misrepresentation may entitle recovery either under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or, in suitable cases at common law. Damages for an innocent misrepresentation are more constrained and can only be awarded by the exercise of the court's discretion under section 2(2) of the 1967 Act.^[27]

Indemnity

Damages are different from an indemnity. Instead of covering all consequential damages, it reimburses expenses that had to be incurred in satisfaction of the contractual duties before the cessation of performance. For instance, indemnities may be granted to alleviate unjust financial losses where a party has incurred unavoidable expenditures by complying with the contract before realizing the misrepresentation.^[28]

Bars to Rescission

Rescission is a significant remedial tool, but it does not apply to every scenario. The right may be lost if the innocent party affirms the contract after discovering the misrepresentation, where a lengthy passage of time makes rescission inequitable, where restoration of the parties to their original positions is impossible or where rights of a bona fide third party have intervened.^[29] These limits reflect the courts' tension of ensuring equitable rights for both parties while maintaining certainty in commercial arrangements.

Consequently, the remedies for misrepresentation will depend on both the nature of the misrepresentation and surrounding circumstances. These two distinctions are critical when considering the legal implications of a false statement made during pre-contract discussions.

Leading Authorities at a Glance

The tort of misrepresentation has had many significant developments fashioned largely by judicial precedent through which the remedy offered to a party in a civil suit for misleading statements continues to affect contemporary commercial disputes. These are the primary authorities on which modern law of misrepresentation has evolved.

Derry v Peek (1889)

Facts: In a prospectus, the directors of a tramway company claimed that they were entitled to run steam-powered trams, thinking that approval from government was merely a formality. In the end approval was not granted and investors lost money as they had relied on that statement.

Decision: The directors genuinely believed at the time it was made, that the statement was true, and this was essentially what the House of Lords determined. The representation was false, but there was no fraud because the directors neither knew that the statement was false or had acted with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not.

Legal Principle: The modern definition of fraudulent misrepresentation was established by Lord Herschell which states that there is no fraud unless a representation that it is false has been made or believed to be true or made recklessly, careless whether it is true or false.

Why It Still Matters: Derry v Peek is still the leading case on fraudulent misrepresentation, and establishes an English contract law distinction between fraud and negligence.

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964]

Facts: In this case, the advertising agents depended on a favorable monetary reference provided by one of its clients – the defendant bank. The claimants submitted claims for economic loss arising out of the incorrect advice aftergoing through the customer going into liquidation.

Decision and Principle: The House of Lords held that although the bank likely escaped liability as a result of an effective disclaimer, it was in principle possible for negligent statements which cause pure economic loss to be actionable when a special relationship existed giving rise to a duty of care.

Why It Still Matters: This case gives rise to the modern law of negligent misstatement, which forms the basis for negligent misrepresentation in commercial and professional advisory relationships.

Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd[1978]

Facts: The defendants in actual negotiations relied on false information about the barges' cargo, even though they had accurate documents available.

Decision and Principle: The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendants did not demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing their representation to be true and were liable to claims under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Why It Still Matters: The decision continues to be the pre-eminent authority on the burden of proof under section 2(1), and illustrates the very high hurdle clarify that representors must clear in order to rely on the statutory defence.

Long v Lloyd [1958]

Facts: The claimant bought a lorry after being induced to do so following false representations as to its state. Despite finding the vehicle with defects, he nevertheless used it and accepted the seller's undertaking to carry out repairs.

Decision and Principle: The Court of Appeal found that the claim holder had affirmed the contract by continuing to use the vehicle after learning of the misrepresentation and so lost his right to rescission.

Why It Still Matters: The case shows that rescission, whilst not an automatic right, will be lost where the innocent party elects to affirm the contract once it knows what the true position is.

The Misrepresentation Act 1967

The Misrepresentation Act 1967 plays a key role in English contract law by providing a statutory supplement to the common law rules on misrepresentation. It is primarily designed to enhance the level of protection available in misrepresentation where a contract has been entered into, especially if fraud cannot be proved. The Act does not supersede the common law, but rather sits alongside it, changing some things about liability and remedies.^[30]

The key provision is section 2(1), which imposes a statutory remedy in cases of negligent misrepresentation. Where a person has contracted in reliance upon a false representation, the representor will be liable for damages unless he can show that at the time the contract was made, he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe that the statement was true. This reversed onus makes it much better protection than the common law action of negligent misstatement equivalent.^[31]

In restrictive cases of non-fraudulent misrepresentation, section 2(2) empowers the court to award damages instead of rescission in circumstances where it believes that this would produce a fairer result. This is to allow the court to make an adjustment allowing a balance between the respective interests of both parties when it would be disproportionate or impracticable to set aside the contract.^[32]

As such, the common law continues to exist alongside (but not in place of) the Act. Although the tort of deceit in relation to fraudulent misrepresentation and principles already developed in case law govern negligent misstatement, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides important statutory remedies which are still key parts of modern commercial contracting.^[33]

What This Looks Like in Practice

These three scenarios show how easily misrepresentation happens in daily business deals, and what actually happens legally when things go wrong.

Scenario 1: The Cooked Books

Imagine someone selling a manufacturing company. They tell a potential buyer that the business has cleared £2 million in profit every year for the last three years. The buyer trusts the paperwork, signs on the dotted line, and takes over. Then, the truth comes out: the numbers were completely fabricated, and the business is barely scraping by. If the buyer can prove they only bought the company because of those fake financial statements, they have a solid legal case. Depending on whether the seller lied on purpose, was careless, or genuinely made an innocent mistake, the buyer can usually either walk away from the deal entirely or sue for the missing cash.^[34]

Scenario 2: The Unapproved Office Block

Next, look at commercial real estate. A developer sells off an office building, swearing up and down that every single planning permission is locked in and legal. After the deal closes, the new owner gets a rude awakening: a huge chunk of the building was put up illegally without proper approvals. Now they are facing council fines and massive bills to fix it. Because the buyer relied on the developer’s word before signing, English law allows them to fight back. They can look to get the contract canceled or force the developer to cover the costs.^[35]

Scenario 3: Bad Financial Advice

Finally, there is the advice we pay for. A financial adviser tells a client to put their money into a specific investment, promising it is totally safe and matches their goals. But the adviser was lazy—they didn't do their homework and completely missed obvious signs that the investment was highly volatile. The client trusts them, invests, and loses almost everything. Because an adviser owes their client a duty of care, they can be held legally responsible for negligent misstatement or misrepresentation.^[36]

The takeaway here is that misrepresentation isn't just some dry legal theory. It is a massive risk in everyday corporate buyouts, property deals, and professional consulting.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is misrepresentation?

A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact or law made by one party to another before the contract is made, which induces the other party to enter into that contract.

Can a contract be cancelled?

Yes. In suitable cases, rescission may be available. This is the remedy that tries to undo the contract and put both parties back where they were before it was made.

Can silence amount to misrepresentation?

Usually silence alone is not enough. But silence may become legally relevant where a previous statement becomes false, where a fuller disclosure is required, or where the circumstances create a false impression.

What is the difference between negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation?

Fraudulent misrepresentation requires dishonesty or recklessness. Negligent misrepresentation does not require fraud, but focuses on whether the statement was made carelessly or without reasonable grounds.

What remedies exist?

The main remedies are rescission, damages, indemnity and, in some cases, damages in lieu of rescission under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Key Takeaways

Misrepresentation is a serious commercial law risk. It may arise before a contract is signed, when one party relies on a false statement of fact or law. The statement does not always have to be fraudulent. A careless statement may still create liability, and even an innocent mistake may justify rescission where the legal requirements are met. The key questions are whether the statement was false, whether it was relied upon, and what remedy is still practically available. In business sales, property transactions, investment decisions and professional advice, those questions can make the difference between a bad bargain and a legally actionable claim.

Sources and Bibliography

1. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL); Misrepresentation Act 1967, ss 2(1)–2(2).
2. With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA); Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 (CA).
3. Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV [2002] EWCA Civ 15, [2002] EMLR 27.
4. Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9.
5. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2; Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9.
6. With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA); Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 (CA).
7. Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 (PC); Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7 (CA).
8. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 (CA); Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL).
9. Keates v Cadogan (1851) 10 CB 591, 138 ER 234; With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA); Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV [2002] EWCA Civ 15, [2002] EMLR 27.
10. Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 (CA); Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & Fin 232, 7 ER 684.
11. With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA); Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV [2002] EWCA Civ 15, [2002] EMLR 27.
12. Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 (PC); Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7 (CA); Pankhania v Hackney LBC [2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch), [2004] EMLR 10.
13. Museprime Properties Ltd v Adhill Properties Ltd [1990] 36 EG 114 (CA); Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9.
14. Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 (CA); Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & Fin 232, 7 ER 684; Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 (CA).
15. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1); Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 (CA); Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297 (CA).
16. Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9; Hugh Beale (Gen Ed), Chitty on Contracts (35th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2023) Vol 1, Ch 7.
17. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL).
18. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL).
19. Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 (CA); Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254 (HL).
20. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1).
21. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL).
22. Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 (CA).
23. Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9.
24. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1); William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016 (CA).
25. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2; Edwin Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (16th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2024) Ch 9.
26. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218 (HL); Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 (CA).
27. Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 (CA); Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297 (CA); Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1).
28. Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49 (CA).
29. Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 (CA); Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753 (CA); Vigers v Pike (1842) 8 Cl & Fin 562, 8 ER 220.
30. Misrepresentation Act 1967.
31. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1); Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 (CA); Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297 (CA).
32. Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(2); William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016 (CA).
33. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL); Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL); Hugh Beale (Gen Ed), Chitty on Contracts (35th Edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2023) Vol 1, Ch 7.
34. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (HL); Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254 (HL).
35. Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 (CA); With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA); William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016 (CA).
36. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL); Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 (CA); Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1).