Redgrave v Hurd
1881 · (1881) 20 Ch D 1
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A solicitor selling his practice and house misstated the income of the practice. The buyer could have checked the books but did not.
- Issue
- Could the buyer , though he could have found out the truth?
- Held
- Yes. It is no defence to an action for rescission that the claimant could have discovered the truth with due diligence.
- Principle
- A party induced by a may rescind, even if he could have found out the truth.
- Why it matters
- It shows equity's readiness to rescind for innocent misrepresentation.
Words and Latin in this note
- Misrepresentation
- A false statement of fact, made before the contract, which induced the other party to enter it. The contract may be rescinded, and damages may follow. Open the note.
- Rescission
- Setting a voidable contract aside, so that the parties are put back, as far as possible, where they were before it. Open the note.
Also on Lanbuk
- Redgrave v Hurd in Lanbuk on the Law of Contract
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.