Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
action for damages, the plaintiffs were awarded £1,600 against the dealer representing the extra amount they had been induced to pay on the basis that if the actual deposit of £1,200 had been stated, the sale price should have been only £6,000 rather than £7,600, with the result that the plaintiffs would have advanced only £4,800, rather than £6,400. The dealer appealed against this decision and the plaintiffs cross-appealed, contending that its actual loss was £3,625 representing the difference between the amount advanced and the outstanding balance owed to them by D1 under the hire-purchase agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate measure of damages to apply was that applicable to fraud actions in tort, so that the plaintiff was entitled to recover all the loss which flowed directly from the misrepresentation, even if not foreseeable. On this basis, the plaintiff was entitled to the £3,625 under the counterclaim, subject to allowance being made in respect of payments already made: Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297, CA, p 303
DOI link for action for damages, the plaintiffs were awarded £1,600 against the dealer representing the extra amount they had been induced to pay on the basis that if the actual deposit of £1,200 had been stated, the sale price should have been only £6,000 rather than £7,600, with the result that the plaintiffs would have advanced only £4,800, rather than £6,400. The dealer appealed against this decision and the plaintiffs cross-appealed, contending that its actual loss was £3,625 representing the difference between the amount advanced and the outstanding balance owed to them by D1 under the hire-purchase agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate measure of damages to apply was that applicable to fraud actions in tort, so that the plaintiff was entitled to recover all the loss which flowed directly from the misrepresentation, even if not foreseeable. On this basis, the plaintiff was entitled to the £3,625 under the counterclaim, subject to allowance being made in respect of payments already made: Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297, CA, p 303
action for damages, the plaintiffs were awarded £1,600 against the dealer representing the extra amount they had been induced to pay on the basis that if the actual deposit of £1,200 had been stated, the sale price should have been only £6,000 rather than £7,600, with the result that the plaintiffs would have advanced only £4,800, rather than £6,400. The dealer appealed against this decision and the plaintiffs cross-appealed, contending that its actual loss was £3,625 representing the difference between the amount advanced and the outstanding balance owed to them by D1 under the hire-purchase agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate measure of damages to apply was that applicable to fraud actions in tort, so that the plaintiff was entitled to recover all the loss which flowed directly from the misrepresentation, even if not foreseeable. On this basis, the plaintiff was entitled to the £3,625 under the counterclaim, subject to allowance being made in respect of payments already made: Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297, CA, p 303
ABSTRACT
So, I turn to the issue on this appeal which the dealer submits raises a pure point of law: where: (a) a motor dealer innocently misrepresents to a finance company the amount of the sale price of, and the deposit paid by the intended purchaser of, the car; and (b) the finance company is thereby induced to enter into a hire-purchase agreement with the purchaser which it would not have done if it had known the true facts; and (c) the purchaser thereafter dishonestly disposes of the car and defaults on the hire-purchase agreement from the motor dealer?
