David sold Peter an ancient porcelain piece, representing it was from the Tang Dynasty. Five years later, an expert found it was a replica. Peter wants to rescind the contract for misrepresentation. There was an innocent misrepresentation as David genuinely believed it was authentic. Peter can rescind the contract and receive a refund since the goods did not match the description, as per a similar past case. However, remedies may be limited by passage of time or the item's condition. In summary, Peter can rescind for innocent misrepresentation but certain limitations may apply.

1. Acy2021 L11 Group 1
Misrepresentation

2. Table of contents
01 02
03 04
Timeline of the case Misrepresentation
Analysis of the issue Conclusion

3. Timeline of the case
01

4. Timeline of Case 5- Misrepresentation
Peter was informed that it
was from the Tang Dynasty
. David, who likewise
thought so. Also, he claims
that his friend verified and
checked it.
Peter wonder he can
rescind the contract under
the ground and type of
misrepresentation
Peter purchased a
piece of ancient
porcelain from David
Peter invited Mr. Fong,
an expert antiquarian
who inspected to see
the porcelain and found
that it is a replica.
2015 2015 2018 2018

5. Misrepresentation
02

6. Four condition of misrepresentation
A misrepresentation is
(i) a representation of fact which is untrue
(ii) made by one contracting party to the other before the contract is made
(iii) which is an inducement to the party to enter into the contract
(iv) must be a material fact (the important fact that can affect a reasonable
person’s judgment whether to enter into the contract or not)

7. Analysis of the case
03

8. What? Which ? How?
Analysis of the issues
Was there misrepresentation by
David?
Type of misrepresentation Can Peter rescind the contract base
on the misrepresentation?

9. Analysis of the issue
● David = Representor & Peter = Representee
● Case: David believed and advised Peter that the porcelain was from
the Tang Dynasty
(i) False statement >> Representor don’t tell Peter that the porcelain was
only a replica but try to make he believe it was an authentic Tang Dynasty
piece.
(ii) False statement is proposed by David to Peter before the sales and
purchase provisional agreement is made

10. ● David = Representor & Peter = Representee
● Case: David believed and advised Peter that the porcelain was from
the Tang Dynasty
(iii) Inducement >> Peter thinks that he purchased an authentic porcelain.
(iv) an important fact that can affect Peter’s judgment
->Peter is a dedicated lover of antiquities
● There is a misrepresentation.
-> leading Peter to believe that he was purchasing a valuable porcelain
from the Tang Dynasty.
Analysis of the issue

11. Three types of misrepresentation
(i) Fraudulent misrepresentation
(ii) Negligent misrepresentation
(iii) Innocent misrepresentation
(i) A false statement made in the belief that it is true and has reasonable
grounds to believe that it is true up to the time when the contract is concluded.
>> David has no intention to lie as he believes it is the real one
>> Also, Peter is a dedicated lover of antiquities, but he does not realize it is fake.
>> That means it is hard to find.

12. In 2018, Peter find that this porcelain is a replica through the famous
antiquary Mr. Fong, it means that in 2015, David provide wrong
statement to Peter, but at that time, David personally believed that
it is from Tang Dynasty, it also checked by David’s expert friend.
Innocent Misrepresentation

13. What can Peter do?
● Sue David’s friend by Negligent misrepresentation ?
● Sue David by Negligent misrepresentation ?
● Rescind the contract ?

14. The application of the law
● David made innocent misrepresentation regarding the
origins of the porcelain piece.
● A statement made in the belief that it is true and with
reasonable grounds for that belief, and the statement still
turns out to be false. It is a misrepresentation made without
fraud.

15. Reasoning of the case
● A similar case is for comparison- Leaf v International Galleries(1950)
● According to the Sale of Goods Ordinance (s15)
-> the implied good should correspond with description
-> The breach of the implies condition entitled to the buyers
-reject the goods
-rescind the contract
=> contract will not be formed under this unclear or false description by the
seller

16. Reasoning of the case
● David claimed the porcelain was from Tang Dynasty by his
expert friend
● However, the final inspection showed that it is a copy

17. Reasoning of the case
● However, since David did not intentionally provided false
information to Peter
● This case will be treat as innocent misrepresentation
● As a result, Peter can consider the contract to be rescinded since
David gave incorrect information about the goods.
● Peter also should receive a refund of purchasing the product
● Further potential remedies could consult by the legal professional

18. Leaf v
International
Galleries [1950]
Case Law

19. Timeline
Five years later when he
tried to auction it, Leaf was
told that it was not a
Constable.
The Court of Appeal held
that the plaintiff had lost
his right to rescind after
such a period of time.
Ernest Louis Leaf
purchased painting of
John Constable from
International Galleries.
Leaf paid £85.
He claimed rescission of
the contract against
International Galleries,
to get back his money.
8 March
1944 1950 1950 1950
Judgment

20. ● The claimant purchased a painting from the defendant.
● Both parties believed that the painting was by the artist Constable.
● 5 years later the claimant discovered the painting was not a Constable. The
claimant brought an action based on misrepresentation
● The trial judge found in favour of the defendants, despite explaining that
they had made an innocent misrepresentation regarding the artist of the
painting, on the basis that the contract had been executed.
● The claim based on misrepresentation was successful however, since it was
an innocent misrepresentation, the claimant had lost the right to rescind the
contract through lapse of time.
● His only remedy after that length of time was for damages only, a claim
which he did not bring before the court.
Case Background

21. Conclusion
04

22. Conclusion
■ After analysing the case:
We determinate David made innocent misrepresentation regarding
the False information of the product
■ The divisible contract should be rescinded
■ The purchasing cost also should be REFUNDED
■ However, the further remedies may be subjected by certain limitation
- Passage of time
- The product can be restored to their original position or appearance

23. Thanks!

24. ● Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86. Teacher, Law.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/leaf-v-international-galleries.php?vref=1
Law cases sources