to read the accounts and, had he done so, he would probably have discovered the extent of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It was held, nonetheless, that the plaintiff had relied on the false statement and was therefore entitled to rescission of the contract. If Redgrave v Hurd was decided today, it might be necessary to reconsider whether the court was correct in reaching this conclusion. It is clear that the common law counterpart of a misrepresentation, namely the negligent misstatement, requires reasonableness of reliance. At the very least, this issue should be ‘centre stage’ today. How would it be resolved? Policy dictates that if the misrepresentation is fraudulent an opportunity of inspection (spurned or taken) should not bar reliance on the misrepresentation. To hold otherwise would be a green light for the more effective ‘con artist’! If, on the other hand, the misrepresentation is wholly innocent (particularly if greater expertise resides in the representee) reliance may not be reasonable. As regards negligent misrepresentation, the policy to be adopted is not clear; perhaps the answer lies in the respective skill and knowledge of the parties, particularly as it has now been recognised that at least for the purposes of an action under s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, apportionment of damages for contributory negligence is a possibility.

DOI link for to read the accounts and, had he done so, he would probably have discovered the extent of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It was held, nonetheless, that the plaintiff had relied on the false statement and was therefore entitled to rescission of the contract. If Redgrave v Hurd was decided today, it might be necessary to reconsider whether the court was correct in reaching this conclusion. It is clear that the common law counterpart of a misrepresentation, namely the negligent misstatement, requires reasonableness of reliance. At the very least, this issue should be ‘centre stage’ today. How would it be resolved? Policy dictates that if the misrepresentation is fraudulent an opportunity of inspection (spurned or taken) should not bar reliance on the misrepresentation. To hold otherwise would be a green light for the more effective ‘con artist’! If, on the other hand, the misrepresentation is wholly innocent (particularly if greater expertise resides in the representee) reliance may not be reasonable. As regards negligent misrepresentation, the policy to be adopted is not clear; perhaps the answer lies in the respective skill and knowledge of the parties, particularly as it has now been recognised that at least for the purposes of an action under s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, apportionment of damages for contributory negligence is a possibility.

to read the accounts and, had he done so, he would probably have discovered the extent of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It was held, nonetheless, that the plaintiff had relied on the false statement and was therefore entitled to rescission of the contract. If Redgrave v Hurd was decided today, it might be necessary to reconsider whether the court was correct in reaching this conclusion. It is clear that the common law counterpart of a misrepresentation, namely the negligent misstatement, requires reasonableness of reliance. At the very least, this issue should be ‘centre stage’ today. How would it be resolved? Policy dictates that if the misrepresentation is fraudulent an opportunity of inspection (spurned or taken) should not bar reliance on the misrepresentation. To hold otherwise would be a green light for the more effective ‘con artist’! If, on the other hand, the misrepresentation is wholly innocent (particularly if greater expertise resides in the representee) reliance may not be reasonable. As regards negligent misrepresentation, the policy to be adopted is not clear; perhaps the answer lies in the respective skill and knowledge of the parties, particularly as it has now been recognised that at least for the purposes of an action under s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, apportionment of damages for contributory negligence is a possibility.