Introduction :
fraud is defined as any of act committed by the party or his connivance or his agent with the intention to harm or deceiving to the another party or any of the member of the party to enter into the agreement. Also fraud is sometimes a crime in itself more often it is a element of crime. We can consider fraud and misrepresentation as a similar thing but both of this have different elements. Fraud involves the false representation of facts. Misrepresentation a false statement or maybe a false material fact which stops the other party to enter in the contract. Then the contract will be considered as void now it is depending on the situation and the adversely impacted party may seek damages due to it.
DISSCUSSION
A contract that was entered into with fraudulent representation is voidable at the belated birthday party’s discretion. false representation by false mention of a fact in the settlement.
Section 18 of the law defines misrepresentation as S.18.
Misrepresentation is described as:
-
- The favorable declaration, in a fashion no longer supported by the knowledge of the character saying it, of something which is untrue, even when he thinks it to
-
- Any violation of accountability that, without intent to deceive, benefits the person committing it or anybody claiming to be under him by persuading everyone else to share his bias or that of anyone claiming to be beneath him.be true
-
- Causing but innocently a celebration to an agreement, to make a screw up as to the substance of the issue that’s the situation of the settlement.
Fraud Intentional misrepresentation of facts, speaking broadly is called “fraud”. According to section 17 , Any of the following acts undertaken with the assistance of a party to an agreement, or with his knowledge, or with the assistance of his agent, with the aim to deceive another party or his agents, or to induce him to enter into an agreement, constitute fraud into the community
1. The assertion that something is true when it isn’t always true by someone who doesn’t believe it to be true;
2. The purposeful hiding of truth using someone with statistical knowledge or belief
3. a promise made with no intention of following through on it;
4. any other action suited to mislead; and
5. any such act or omission as the rule in question specifically publicizes
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRAUD AND MISREPRRESENTATION
When someone commits fraud, they make a false fact appear to be true while they are aware that it is untrue. In contrast, when someone makes a false fact appear to be real through misrepresentation, the party making the assertion mistakenly believes it to be true when it is not. The most important component is intention, which, while present in fraud, is absent in misrepresentation. Fraud implies intention, thus the victim of fraud has the ability to sue, this right is not available to the victim of misrepresentation alone. Misrepresentation is the innocent creation of a false statement, whereas fraud is the intentional creation of a false statement. In both situations, the consent of the party is void, but in the first, there was an intention to do so so that the party may be persuaded to sign the contract; in the second, the person making the misrepresentation had no such intention to persuade the other party. Misrepresentation is essentially the truthfully representing an untrue fact. The contract can be avoided in both fraud and misrepresentation situations, but the intent to deceive is necessary. But, if a party is the victim of dishonest silence or misrepresentation and had the means to learn the truth by using reasonable effort, the contract cannot be broken. However, aside from misrepresentation by silence, it does not lie in the mouth of the person submitting extortion to state that is unfortunate casualty was excessively effectively tricked or had the methods for finding reality. Ultimately, a person complaining of distortion can be met with the safeguard that he had “the methods for finding reality with standard perseverance” [s.17, exception].
“Fools must be shielded from knaves.”
Can a Party sue for damages in misrepresentation?
When there was no intent to deceive the other party and just an oversight on the side of the misrepresenting party, the injured party cannot bring a claim for damages.
Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas (1979), 29 N.R. 424 (SCC)
This dispute resulted from a situation involving the client of a residence and damages attributable to flooding in their storm basement. It was discovered that the house did not have any on-site garbage as required by a city ordinance. The concession to the market allowed for the completion of the artwork on the premises as requested by any civil, common, or governmental authority, “providing that the vendor has disclosed to the consumer every single astounding transgression and requests.” A deed transferred leftover property that was no longer included in the confirmation, and the seller failed to inform the purchasers of its inability to provide establishment waste. The customers bought a development under the heading of completed home. The clients’ fascination was disregarded by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The clients alleged. The shopkeeper was held accountable for any damages, and the Supreme Court of Canada approved the fascination. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the provision in the purchase agreement included an assurance that it would inform the customers about their incapacity to adapt to the requirements of a reliable structure, which it did not do. The confirmation no longer concentrated inside the movement and sustained it, the Supreme Court of Canada said, making the merchant responsible for its penetration.
Rattan Lal Ahluwalia v. Jai Janinder Prasad, AIR 1976 P H 200.
Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China v. Imperial Bank of India, AIR 1933 Cal 366.
CONCLUSION
The information above allows us to draw the conclusion that whereas In fraud, one party deceives another birthday party, while in misrepresentation, both parties were tricked into thinking something was true when it was actually false.
REFRRENCE
Books
The Indian contact 1872
Cheshire, Fifoot, and Furmston’s Law of Contract MP Furmston
Online sources
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening