ABSTRACT
The relationship between the “reform” which Pine Top did make—the resurrection of inducement—and materiality in the majority sense, is currently odd. Inducement is believed to require a difference in action. The Commissions’ proposed change to the test for materiality is predicated on that alleged injustice, so that needs to be addressed. The 1980 Law Commissions took a different line on materiality. The Law Commissions might perhaps point to this objective limb of the test as offering an answer to some of Lord Mustill’s criticisms. The Law Commissions’ proposal leaves us to guess whether “the circumstances” are intended to encompass the insured’s choice of broker, however unwise, or whether the reasonable insured is assumed to be guided by an honest and careful broker. The Commission has previously abstained from recommending that Parliament interfere in the terms of business-to-business contracts in all contexts, including those where the buyer does not have professional assistance in their negotiation.
