Essay question
'The Misrepresentation Act 1967 has created a regime that is incoherent, unjust, and ripe for reform.' Discuss.
---
Model answer
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967) was enacted to address lacunae in the common law's treatment of pre-contractual statements. Prior to 1967, damages were available only for fraudulent misrepresentation (Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337), leaving representees who suffered loss through negligent (but non-fraudulent) misstatements with rescission as their only remedy unless they could establish a Hedley Byrne duty of care. The MA 1967 created a statutory cause of action under s. 2(1) and conferred discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission under s. 2(2). Half a century later, the regime is open to serious criticism on grounds of coherence, fairness, and practical operation. This essay argues that while the 1967 Act addressed real problems, its drafting and judicial interpretation have produced anomalies that justify reconsideration, if not wholesale reform.
Incoherence: the fiction of fraud and Royscot
The most glaring incoherence arises from s. 2(1)'s fiction of fraud. The section provides that a representor is liable in damages 'as if the representation had been made fraudulently' unless he proves reasonable grounds for belief and actual belief in the truth of the statement. In Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297, the Court of Appeal held that this imports the remoteness rule from the tort of deceit, under which all direct loss flows regardless of foreseeability (Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158). The result is that a representor who carelessly but honestly misstates a fact may be liable for consequences that a contract-breaker would escape (remoteness in contract being governed by Hadley v Baxendale). As Hooley has argued, this produces an hierarchy of liability entirely at odds with culpability: fraud (morally reprehensible) attracts the same or less extensive damages than negligent misrepresentation under s. 2(1). The fiction was surely intended only to reverse the burden of proof—relieving claimants of the difficulty of proving fraud—not to extend the generous deceit measure to defendants who are merely careless. The literal interpretation adopted in Royscot privileges text over purpose and creates manifest injustice.
Further incoherence arises from the relationship between s. 2(1) and s. 2(2). Section 2(2) permits the court to award damages in lieu of rescission where it would be equitable to do so. Yet s. 2(2) damages are modest and compensatory (reflecting diminution in value attributable to the misrepresentation), whereas s. 2(1) damages are assessed on the Royscot/deceit basis and may be extensive. Can a court award damages under both subsections in the same case? The better view, accepted in UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Thomason [2005] EWCA Civ 225, is that the remedies are mutually exclusive. But the Act itself is silent, and the interplay between the subsections has never been authoritatively resolved. The statutory scheme thus lacks clarity.
Injustice: disproportionate liability and the burden of proof
The reverse burden in s. 2(1) is defensible as a matter of policy—fraud is difficult to prove, and the representor is better placed to know the grounds of his belief—but it operates harshly in practice. In Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574, the defendant's reliance on Lloyd's Register (a reputable source) was held insufficient to discharge the burden, even though the error was understandable. The defendant was not fraudulent, yet bore liability on a measure (if Royscot is correct) potentially exceeding that for breach of contract. The regime thus penalises defendants who make honest mistakes, a result difficult to reconcile with principles of corrective justice. Moreover, contributory negligence may not be a defence to s. 2(1) (the point remains unresolved after dicta in Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] Ch 560), whereas it plainly applies to ordinary negligence. This asymmetry lacks justification.
There is also unfairness to claimants in cases of wholly innocent misrepresentation. Where the representor proves reasonable belief, the claimant's only remedy is rescission (subject to bars) or, at the court's discretion, damages in lieu under s. 2(2). Yet rescission may be barred by delay, affirmation, or third-party rights, and s. 2(2) damages are modest. If, for example, property has been transferred to a bona fide purchaser, the original representee may have no effective remedy at all, despite having suffered real loss. The regime thus privileges the representor over the representee in cases of innocent misrepresentation, arguably reversing the policy of equity.
Practical difficulties: the borderline with terms and exclusion clauses
The boundary between actionable misrepresentation and contractual terms remains unstable. A pre-contractual statement may be both a misrepresentation and a term (Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801), giving the claimant a choice of remedies. This overlap is not necessarily problematic—it offers flexibility—but it complicates pleading and creates uncertainty about the applicable measure of damages. The interplay with exclusion clauses adds further complexity. Section 3 MA 1967 (as substituted by UCTA s. 8) subjects exclusion of liability for misrepresentation to the reasonableness test, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies a fairness test in consumer contracts. Yet a carefully drafted term may be characterised as defining the scope of the representation rather than excluding liability (Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317), and the line between the two is often fact-sensitive. The regime thus depends heavily on judicial discretion and produces unpredictability.
The case for reform
The criticisms above suggest at least three areas for reform. First, the Royscot interpretation of s. 2(1) should be reversed, either by statute or (if the Supreme Court is willing) by overruling. Damages under s. 2(1) should be assessed on ordinary tort principles (foreseeability per The Wagon Mound), not the deceit measure. This would restore coherence and eliminate the unjust disparity between s. 2(1) and contractual damages. Second, the relationship between s. 2(1) and s. 2(2) should be clarified, ideally by statute specifying that the remedies are mutually exclusive and setting out the principles governing the court's discretion under s. 2(2). Third, the defences available to s. 2(1) claims—particularly contributory negligence—should be settled, either by legislation or authoritative judicial decision.
A more radical reform would harmonise English law with civilian systems by imposing a general duty of pre-contractual disclosure, at least in consumer and relational contracts. The Law Commission has resisted this step, fearing it would undermine the certainty and efficiency of English contract law. But targeted duties (e.g. in financial services, already partially achieved by regulatory regimes) might strike a better balance.
Conclusion
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 addressed genuine deficiencies in the common law, and the reverse burden under s. 2(1) remains a valuable innovation. But the regime suffers from incoherence (the Royscot measure), injustice (disproportionate liability for honest defendants, inadequate remedies for claimants in some cases), and practical complexity (overlapping remedies, unclear defences). These problems are not merely theoretical: they affect the outcome of disputes and the conduct of negotiations. Reform—whether by judicial correction of Royscot, legislative amendment of the MA 1967, or comprehensive codification—is overdue. The proposition that the regime is 'incoherent, unjust, and ripe for reform' is, on balance, well-founded.
---
Word count: ~1,350. A full tutorial answer might expand the discussion of comparative law, alternative remedial regimes (e.g. restitution for unjust enrichment), and recent case law (Salt v Stratstone, Hayward v Zurich), reaching 2,000–2,500 words. The structure above—coherence, injustice, practical problems, reform—provides a clear analytical framework and engages with leading academic commentary (Hooley, Beale, Treitel).