This question demands for the discussion of a contract law concept, the contract becomes
voidable when this is present i.e., Misrepresentation. In the above discussion we will consider
whether Romantic Wedding, the representor, had made a misrepresentation or not. If it has,
then what type of misrepresentation is this and what are the remedies available for the
representee, Honey.
Before discussing the principles of misrepresentation, first we must know what is a it.
Misrepresentation refers to a false statement of fact or law made by one party to another party,
which induces the other party to enter into a contract. It is an untrue or misleading statement
made by one party that causes another party to suffer a loss or to enter into a contract under
false pretenses. Misrepresentation can occur in various forms, including through words,
conduct, or even silence or omission of material facts. In order to be a misrepresentation, there
must be a false statement. Now, we must look into the facts of the question and determine if
there is any statement or not. Statement can be done by writing, orally and through conduct.
From the question, we can see that Amir, the manager, informed Honey that the sound of the
birds will be the only sound in the venue and the venue will large enough for the arrangements
Honey is planning.
Now, it is to decide whether the statement was false or not. Amir stated Honey that the venue
will be quiet and can hold 100 guests. The place was in a vicinity of a highway where the sound
of passing vehicles came and the venue couldn’t even hold 40 guests. The statement became
false as it was not accordingly to the explanation of Amir. The general rule is that if a
representor is in a better position to know the actual information, he should only provide the
true facts to the representee (Smith v Land & Houses Property Corp). According to the law,
Amir is in a position to know all the relevant information of the venue as he is an expert of this
and it is his legal duty to pass the actual information to his customers, who are interested to
take his service. In this instance Amir didn’t provide Honey with the authentic information that
she needed for arranging her wedding. It also to be determined that the statement made by Amir
was a term or a mere representation. first, if the person making the statement has special
knowledge about the subject. If one person knows more about the subject than the other, that's
a sign that the statement is meant to be a term. (Dick Bentley v. Harold Smith Motors): If the
person being represented knows more about the subject than the person making the statement,
this shows that the statement is just a representation. (Oscar vs. Williams Chess). Second, a
statement is meant to be a term if the person who made it took responsibility for its accuracy.
(Shawel vs. Reade). Third, how important the statement is. If the statement is about something
important, it's more likely that the parties meant it to be a term. (Bannerman vs. White).
Fourth, a statement is more likely to be a mere representation if it comes with a suggestion that
its truth be checked. (Ecay vs. Godfrey). Fifthly, when one side clearly relied on the other, this
shows that the statement is meant to be a term (Esso Petroleum v. Mardon). And lastly, if the
statement is reduced in writing, which means it is put down in a contract, this is called the
Parole Evidence Rule. It shows that the statement is meant to be used as a term. (Routledge
vs. Mckay). From the given facts above we can say that the statement made by Amir was a
representation and not a term of the contract.
As it has already been shown that Amir made a false statement about an existing fact, it is now
important to show that the false statement of an existing fact induced Honey to agree to the
contract. The promise must be important for the deal to be made. If the statement is important,
it must be shown that the person being represented relied on it. The misrepresentation has been
material that a reasonable person would have been induced to sign the contract (Muse Prime
Properties v. Adhill Properties). it is reasonable that any person in Honey's position would
