same position he/she would have been in if the statement had not been made rather than to put him into the position he/she would have been in had it been true. In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the defendant is also liable for all the damage to the claimant which flows directly from the fraudulent statement. In Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd, the defendant advertised his business for sale, claiming that it had an annual turnover of £27,000. The plaintiff, who was interested in purchasing the business, was shown copies of the accounts and was informed that trade entailed ‘Two-thirds retail, one-third wholesale – all over the counter’, which indicated that the purchaser would have no need to employ a commercial traveller to canvass for orders. In fact, turnover was less than had been represented and half the trade was wholesale, requiring a traveller to canvass for orders. However, the plaintiff could not afford to employ a traveller, with the result that all that trade was lost. It was accepted that the relevant misrepresentations were fraudulent and the plaintiff sued for damages. The Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of a fraud action, the plaintiff could recover in respect of all the damage which flows from the fraudulent statement: Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158, CA, p 166

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-275

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

same position he/she would have been in if the statement had not been made rather than to put him into the position he/she would have been in had it been true. In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the defendant is also liable for all the damage to the claimant which flows directly from the fraudulent statement. In Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd, the defendant advertised his business for sale, claiming that it had an annual turnover of £27,000. The plaintiff, who was interested in purchasing the business, was shown copies of the accounts and was informed that trade entailed ‘Two-thirds retail, one-third wholesale – all over the counter’, which indicated that the purchaser would have no need to employ a commercial traveller to canvass for orders. In fact, turnover was less than had been represented and half the trade was wholesale, requiring a traveller to canvass for orders. However, the plaintiff could not afford to employ a traveller, with the result that all that trade was lost. It was accepted that the relevant misrepresentations were fraudulent and the plaintiff sued for damages. The Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of a fraud action, the plaintiff could recover in respect of all the damage which flows from the fraudulent statement: Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158, CA, p 166

ABSTRACT

In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the defendant is also liable for all the damage to the claimant which flows directly from the fraudulent statement.

In Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd,39 the defendant advertised his business for sale, claiming that it had an annual turnover of £27,000. The plaintiff, who was interested in purchasing the business, was shown copies of the accounts and was informed that trade entailed ‘Two-thirds retail, one-third wholesale – all over the counter’, which indicated that the purchaser would have no need to employ a commercial traveller to canvass for orders. In fact, turnover was less than had been represented and half the trade was wholesale, requiring a traveller to canvass for orders. However, the plaintiff could not afford to employ a traveller, with the result that all that trade was lost. It was accepted that the relevant misrepresentations were fraudulent and the plaintiff sued for damages.