Transcript Slide 1

Revision
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
1
Void, Voidable & Unenforcable
 Void
 Where one or more of essential elements of
contract are missing
 There is no contract
 Voidable
 Parties have option to avoid contract
 Equitable remedy of rescission
 Valid & enforceable until one party rescinds
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
2
Rescission
 Effect
 Contract is terminated ab initio (i.e. it is as
though there never was a contract)
 cancels the contract from the point of
termination
 Procedure
 Innocent party rescinds by giving notice to the
other party
 Notice can be implied from conduct
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
3
Bars to Rescission




Third Party rights adversely affected
Substantial restitution not possible
Innocent party affirms contract
Party wishing to rescind does not have “clean
hands”
 Lapse of time
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
4
Duress
 A contract entered into due to coercion or
force can be rescinded
 Coercion can be:
 To the person;
 To goods; or
 Economic duress
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
5
Economic duress
 An economic threat that is not “legitimate”
 No rule that that commercial parties have to
be fair to one another
 A threat to break a contract can be economic
duress
 A lawful threat may be illegitimate
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
6
Undue influence
 The unconscionable use by one person of
power possessed by him over another in
order to induce the weaker party to enter into
a contract
 Presumed in pre-existing special
relationships where one party is in a position
of trust and confidence
 Called a “fiduciary relationship”
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
7
Fiduciary Relationships








Parent & Child
Guardian & ward
Principal & Agent
Trustee & Beneficiary
Doctor & Patient
Lawyer & Client
Religious advisor & Follower
More
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
8
Where No Special Relationship
 Weaker party must show that there is a
relationship of dependence, trust &
confidence
 Stronger Party exerted undue influence to the
extent that the weaker party could not
exercise an independent judgment
 There must be more than mere reliance or
influence
 Weaker party must show that the contract
would not have been made without the undue
influence
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
9
Where no Special Relationship
 Court will look at:
 The equality of the bargain
 The weaker party’s ability to make free and
independent choices





Domination by one party
Dependency on another
Need for guidance, advice and support
Low intelligence, weak mindedness, illiteracy
Age & Health
 Lack of independent financial or legal advice
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
10
Unconscionable Conduct
 One party takes advantage of the other
parties special disability to the extent that the
contract is unfair or unconscionable
 Blomley v Ryan (S&OR p219\261)
 Commercial Bank v Amadio (S&OR p61\86)
 Elements
 Special disability
 Absence of any equality between the parties
 Disability evident to other party
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
11
Mistake
 A party cannot get out of a contract because they
made a mistake
 Exceptions:
 Mistake due to other party’s misrepresentation,
unconscionable conduct etc.
 Common mistake
 Mutual mistake
 Unilateral mistake
 Mistake as to nature of document
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
12
Common Mistake – Equity




A common misunderstanding
An important but not fundamental mistake
Mistake through no fault of either party
Unconscionable for one party to benefit from
mistake
 No bar to rescission
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
13
Mutual Mistake




Parties are talking about different things
Both are mistaken
Difficult to work out what parties intended
No “meeting of the minds”
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
14
Unilateral Mistake - Equity
 One party is mistaken as to a
fundamental term; and
 Other party is aware, or should be
aware, of the mistake
 Mistaken party will suffer detriment if not
allowed to rescind
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
15
Unilateral Mistake – Common Law
 Mistake as to Identity
 If Third Party rights involved, identity must
be important
 Mistake as to nature of document
 Non est factum
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
16
Mistake as to nature of document
 Radical difference between what was signed
and what party believed they were signing
 Mistaken party relied on others for advice
because unable to
 read document
 Understand document
 Mistaken party not careless
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
17
Misrepresentation
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
18
History
 1880’s – Caveat Emptor – Let the buyer beware
 Court of Equity
 Relief for fraudulent misrepresentation
 Rescission was only remedy
 Common Law Courts
 Relief for innocent misrepresentation only if it
became a term of the contract
 Tort of negligent misrepresentation
 Only remedy was damages
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
19
History
 1970’s – Statutory Reform
 S52 Trade Practices Act & s11 Fair Trading
Act
 Removed distinction between fraudulent,
negligent and innocent misrepresentation
 Built upon previous law regarding
misrepresentation
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
20
Causes of action for misrepresentation
Action for
damages for tort
of deceit
(fraud)
Action for
damages for
tort of
negligence
common law
misrepresentations
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
Action for misleading or
deceptive conduct
(breach of TPA s 52,
Fair Trading Act or
ASIC Act)
statutory
misrepresentations
Action for breach of
contract
contract
law
21
Elements of Misrepresentation
 Statement of material fact
 Statement was false
 Statement was addressed to the representee
before or at the time that the contract was
entered into
 Statement induced the representee to enter
into the contract
 Statement caused loss
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
22
Statement was one of fact
 Statement of past or present fact
 Not
 a mere puff
 A misstatement of the law
 Statement of future intention
 Unless no real intention at time of
representation
 Edgington v Fitzmaurice
 Usually, not an opinion
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
23
Statement was one of fact
 An opinion can be a fact where:
 No genuine or actual belief in its truth
 No reasonable person could hold opinion
 The representor has special knowledge
 Smith v Land and House Property Corp
(Graw 12.4.3)
 The existence of an opinion can be a fact
 Sola Optical v Mills (1987) 168 CLR 628
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
24
Statement was false
 Silence will not normally suffice
 Except
 Distortion of a positive representation (half truths)
 Re Hoffman; ex p Worrell v Scilling
 Krakowski v Eurolynx (graw 13.3.2)
 Altered circumstances
 With v O’Flanagan (Graw 13.3.2)
 Lockhart v Osman (Graw 13.3.2)
 Where there is a fiduciary relationship
 Where contract is of the utmost good faith (e.g.
insurance)
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
25
Addressed to the Representee
 A representee cannot sue on a representation
that was not directed to him and was not
intended to induce him into making the
contract
 Peek v Gurney (S&OR p41\61)
 But is sufficient if communicated to a third
party with the intention that it would be
communicated to the representee
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
26
Statement Induced Representee to Act
 Not necessary that it was the only reason for
entering the contract
 But it must be one of the reasons
 Representee cannot be aware of truth before
entering into the contract
 Holmes v Jones (S&OR p40\60)
 Representee is not required to investigate
 Redgrave v Hurd (S&OR p41\61)
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
27
Categories of Misrepresentation





Fraudulent misrepresentation
Negligent Misrepresentation
Innocent Misrepresentation
Misleading & Deceptive Conduct
Term of Contract
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
28
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
 Representor made a false representation of
fact
 Knowingly
 Without believing its truth or
 was reckless as to whether it was true or
false
 Can sue for damages for tort of deceit
whether a term of the contract or not
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
29
Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit)
Step 1
A false representation
of fact was made (beware
of promises, opinions or a
mere puffery)
Step 2
The representation was
intended to (and did)
induce the representee to
act ; (eg, by creating a
contract)
Step 3
The false representation was
fraudulent: the representor
knew the statement was
untrue, or was reckless as to
its truth
Liability for fraud cannot be excluded
Remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation is
damages
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
30
Negligent Misrepresentation
 There was a misrepresentation
 Representor owed a duty of care to
representee
 Representor failed to exercise the required
standard of care
 Loss, which was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the misrepresentation, was
caused by misrepresentation
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
31
Negligent misrepresentation
Step 1
Did the
representor owe
a duty of care to
the representee?
Step 2
Has the representor
failed to exercise the
required standard of
care?
Step 3
Were the representee’s
losses caused by the
negligence and were the
losses reasonably
foreseeable?
 Liability for negligence can be excluded by an
exemption clause
 Remedy for negligence is damages
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
32
Duty of Care
 Fiduciary relationships
 Special relationships
 A person gives information or advice on a serious
matter where he knows, or ought to know, that he is
being trusted to give the information and knows that
the other party relies and acts on the advice
(Shaddock v City of Parramatta)
 Applies to experts and non-experts
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
33
Innocent misrepresentation
 Representor did not know it was false and
owed no duty of care to the representee
 Will be voidable for mistake
 No damages claimable
 But see s7 Misrepresentations Act
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
34
Misrepresentations Act
 Damages available for all misrepresentations,
including innocent misrepresentation
 Defence to misrepresentation if representor
can prove:
 Had reasonable grounds for believing
representation was true; or
 They were n ot person who made statement and
did not know that it had been made or that it was
untrue
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
35
Misleading & Deceptive Conduct
 Section 52 Trade Practices Act
 No need for fraud or negligence
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
36
Misleading or deceptive conduct
(statutory misrepresentation)
Is the representee
covered by the TPA,
ASIC Act and/or
state legislation
(eg FTA (Vic))?
Has the representee
committed ‘misleading
or deceptive
conduct’and was this ‘in
trade or commerce’?
What remedies are
appropriate under the
relevant Act(s)?
 Prominent and clear disclaimers may affect liability.
 Remedies:
 Damages (if the misleading or deceptive conduct representation
caused the loss);
 Contract created in reliance on the misleading conduct may be
varied or declared void;
 Injunctions;
 Other remedies (eg corrective advertising);
 Criminal sanctions are available for misrepresentations under
s 75AZC TPA.
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
37
Remedies for Misrepresentation
 Recission
 Contract is void ab initio
 Not the same as termination
 Damages
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
38
Capacity to Contract
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
39
Contracts with Minors
 Anyone under 18 years of age
 Contracts with minors can be
 Valid – legally enforceable
 Voidable – legally enforceable until
repudiated by the minor
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
40
Contracts with Minors (Cont)
 Valid contracts
 Supply of necessaries
 Contract for the supply of goods and services
that are suitable to the condition in life of the
minor and to his actual requirements at the time
of sale and delivery
 Onus is one person seeking to enforce contract
against minor
 Nash v Inman
 Reasonable price not contract price
 Beneficial contracts of service
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
41
Contracts with Minors (Cont)
 Beneficial contracts of service
 E.g. apprenticeships
 Must be for the benefit of the minor
 Ratification by Minor after turning 18
 Contract becomes valid and enforceable
Copyright Guy Harley 2008
42