In the last part we discussed about misrepresentation in details. Now let’s continue its discussion.

Expression of opinion
Even if the opinion turns out to be wrong
a mere expression of opinion can not be regarded as misrepresentation.. But in some cases, a statement of opinion may also amount to misrepresentation. In Rajshree Sugars Chemical Ltd v Axis Bank Ltd, (2009) 1 CTC 227 (Mad), representation made by the bank that the US Dollar would never reach the stipulated level of exchange rate against the Swiss Franc was held to be not the statement of a fact because both parties knew how currency behaves and no body has any control on it.

Inducement
It is necessary that misrepresentation must be the cause of the consent, in the sense that but for the misrepresentation the consent would
not have been given . The explanation to Section 19 provides a misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party of whom such fraud was practised, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable. In Hims Enterprises v Ishak Bin Subari, (1992) 1 CLJ 132 (HC), where the agreement between the parties was made on terms with which the plaintiffs were familiar as they were terms previously used by the plaintiffs in their earlier contracts, that bring so the terms contained no surprise for the plaintiffs and hence no culpable misrepresentation.

Means of discovering truth
A party cannot complain of a misrepresentation if he had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence. This is recognised by way of an exception stated along with Section 19. In Balraj Chibber v NOIDA, 1995 AIl LJ 1513: (1996) 27 ALR 10, the allotment of plots
to members of a society, allotment to some of the allottees was cancelled on the ground
that they misrepresented themselves to be members, the cancellation was set aside because they proved their membership intact even otherwise the truth of their membership could have been easily discovered. In the U.P. State Sugar Corpn Karamchari Assn v State of U.P., 1995 All LJ 937, a person entering into a contract with a company which is under industrial sickness proceedings, and
if he did so because he was kept in the dark, he is entitled to be relieved of the bargain and,
if he did so with full knowledge, no relief can be granted to him because he was not induced by misrepresentation. In Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Gowramma, AIR 1994 Kant
29, a motor vehicle insurance policy issued after due verification about the ownership of the vehicle. After accident, the company was not allowed to take the plea that the policy was
obtained by misrepresentation and that the claimant was not the owner of the vehicle.

Further details will be discussed in next part.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

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 at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge