Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 305 views

    MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD (Hajar) PDF

    Uploaded by

    hajar mardhiah
    - The document defines misrepresentation and fraud under Malaysian contract law. Misrepresentation involves a false statement of fact made by one party that induces the other party to enter a contract. Fraud involves additional elements of intent to deceive and knowledge of falsity. - For a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must be false, about a material fact, addressed to and relied upon by the misled party. Mere opinions, exaggerations or silence are generally not considered misrepresentations. Fraud can also include concealment of facts or promises made with no intent to perform. - The standard of proof is balance of probabilities for civil cases but higher standards apply for criminal allegations or where fraud is alleged. If proven

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD (Hajar) PDF

    Uploaded by

    hajar mardhiah
    305 views4 pages
    - The document defines misrepresentation and fraud under Malaysian contract law. Misrepresentation involves a false statement of fact made by one party that induces the other party to enter a contract. Fraud involves additional elements of intent to deceive and knowledge of falsity. - For a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must be false, about a material fact, addressed to and relied upon by the misled party. Mere opinions, exaggerations or silence are generally not considered misrepresentations. Fraud can also include concealment of facts or promises made with no intent to perform. - The standard of proof is balance of probabilities for civil cases but higher standards apply for criminal allegations or where fraud is alleged. If proven

    Original Title

    MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD (hajar).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The document defines misrepresentation and fraud under Malaysian contract law. Misrepresentation involves a false statement of fact made by one party that induces the other party to enter a contract. Fraud involves additional elements of intent to deceive and knowledge of falsity. - For a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must be false, about a material fact, addressed to and relied upon by the misled party. Mere opinions, exaggerations or silence are generally not considered misrepresentations. Fraud can also include concealment of facts or promises made with no intent to perform. - The standard of proof is balance of probabilities for civil cases but higher standards apply for criminal allegations or where fraud is alleged. If proven

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    305 views4 pages

    MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD (Hajar) PDF

    Uploaded by

    hajar mardhiah
    - The document defines misrepresentation and fraud under Malaysian contract law. Misrepresentation involves a false statement of fact made by one party that induces the other party to enter a contract. Fraud involves additional elements of intent to deceive and knowledge of falsity. - For a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must be false, about a material fact, addressed to and relied upon by the misled party. Mere opinions, exaggerations or silence are generally not considered misrepresentations. Fraud can also include concealment of facts or promises made with no intent to perform. - The standard of proof is balance of probabilities for civil cases but higher standards apply for criminal allegations or where fraud is alleged. If proven

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    MISREPRESENTATION Mere exaggeration is not a representation

    but if it has the object and result of inducing


    Definition an affected party it is a representation
    A misrepresentation is a false assertion of Case: Low Kon Fatt v Port Klang Golf
    actual or past truth made by one party before Resort
    or at the time the contract was signed,
    addressed to the other party to the contract, c. Merely relaying information is not a
    and the statement 's maker assumes that representation
    what he said is accurate. To be enforceable, Where a party merely relays information
    that is, the contract is voidable, the given to him by a third party, there is no
    misrepresentation will lead the misled to representation
    consent to the contract. Case : Ravichanthiran v Percetakan
    Section 18 (a) of Contract Act 1950 Wawasan Maju

    Requirement of misrepresentation d.The representation was false


    1. False representation If there was a representation, it must be false
    Case: Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering
    a. Mere silence is not a representation
    The basic rule is that silence is not 2. The representation must be one of
    misrepresentation. There is no duty on a fact
    party to a contract to reveal any details to The false statement must be a statement of a
    another party. His passive concealment of fact made by the maker. Mere expression of
    information likely to affect the consent of opinion or a statement of law is not a
    the other party to contract is not a representation of fact.
    misrepresentation. Principle of “caveat Case : Bisset v Wilkinson, Smith v Land
    emptor” applies.
    Case: Keates v The Earl of Cardagon 3. The maker addressed the statement
    to the misled party.
    b.Mere exaggeration is not a representation Case: Peek v Gurney
    The provisions of section 17(a) have similar
    4. The maker believes in the truth of requirements as section 18(a) where there
    the statement made must be a false representation of fact
    In misrepresentation the representator addressed to the misled party. The only
    believes that his statement or assertion is difference is the state of mind of the maker,
    true and has no intention of deceiving the in section 17 (a) the maker does not believe
    misled party even though the statement turns the truth of the statement
    out to be false. Case: Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak
    Thong
    FRAUD
    b. Active concealment of fact
    State of mind Where a party to a contract actively conceals
    Section 17 of the contract act defines fraud or hides certain important information from
    to include certain acts that are committed by reaching to the other party of the contract,
    a party to a contract, or with his connivance his active concealment amounts to fraud.
    or by his agent with intention to deceive
    another party or to induce him to enter into a c. Fraudulent promises
    contract. In fraud the maker of the statement Where a promise is made without any
    does not believe in the truth of the statement intention to be performed it amounts to
    made and it is made with the intention to fraud. Either the promisor knows that when
    deceive another party to induce him to sign a he made the promise he cannot perform it or
    contract. Contrary to misrepresentation he made a promise that he intends to break.
    where the maker believes in the statement Case: MUI Plaza Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong
    made. Bank

    Positive act d. Any other act fitted to deceive


    Section 17 provide various types of fraud This is catch all clause to prevent any fraud
    from escaping the net of the law
    a. The suggestion as to a fact
    Case : Loi Hieng Chiong v Kon Tek Shin / - Beyond a reasonable doubt
    Datuk Jagindar Singh v Tararajaratnam ii civil offences
    - The standard required in civil cases
    e. Act or omission declared as fraud by law is proof on a balance of probabilities
    but it vary from case to case basis
    Fraud by silence according to the gravity of the
    The general rule is that silence does not allegation
    constitute misrepresentation or fraud. A
    party is not bound to disclose any Proof of fraud
    information to another party. Passive Plaintiffs must bring a clear and direct
    concealment is not amount to fraud. evidence of fraud before the court. If the
    Case : Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering fraud alleged is not strictly and clearly
    proved, the court will not grant any relief
    Exclusion of section 17 (silence may Case: Goh Hooi Yin v Lim Teong Ghee
    amount to fraud)
    a. A duty to speak Effect of Misrepresentation and Fraud
    The law puts upon a person in a position of Section 19 (1) of Contract Act
    trust and confidence a duty to speak and The effect of both is to render the contract
    disclose all relevant information. voidable and not void. The contract is
    Ex: a father and a daughter construed to be valid between the parties
    Case: Lim Kim Hua v Ho Chui Lan until it is set aside by the misled party. He
    may choose to rescind or to affirm the
    b. Equivalent to speech contract
    Illustration (c) of section 17
    Defences
    Standard of proof 1. not voidable where misrep and fraud
    The law demands a high standard of proof in does not affect the misled party’s
    cases where there is an allegation of fraud. consent to enter into a contract
    i. criminal offence a. when he never knew of its existence
    Case : Horsfall v Thomas
    b. He did not allow it to affect his ii. Where misled party does not have means
    judgement to discover the truth
    When the claimant already do investigation Cases: Tay Tho Bok v Segar Oil Palm /
    but still choose to enter into the contract by Beca Sdn Bhd v Tan Choong Kuang
    not relying so much into the fraud and
    misrepresentation but to his own Fraud by silence
    investigation In cases of fraud by silence under the
    Case : Wei Tah Construction v Law Wun explanation to section 17, it is the duty of
    Ing/ Atwood v Small the misled party to exercise ordinary
    c. He was aware of its truth diligence
    If the plaintiff already know the statement
    was untrue he cannot later avoid the contract Active fraud
    Misled parties have no duty to exercise
    2. Not voidable where misled party already ordinary diligence in cases of active fraud.
    discovered the truth by exercising ordinary Thus who commit fraud under section 17
    diligence (a)-(e) cannot use the defences.
    i. Where the misled party had means to Case: Weber v Brown
    discover the truth
    Cases: Tan Chye Chew v Eastern Mining
    Metals / Wei Tah Construction v Law Wun
    Ing

    You might also like