Jump to content

Misrepresentation Act s2


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4522 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts



I am currently at N1 stage with our joint account and my partner's current account. I have read the following on the CAG site, (aplogies to the author, but it intrigued me so much I saved it and now don't know who wrote it).


"Misrepresentation act s2 rather than argue unjust enrichment, as this is well-know to get thrown out at court stage

I would seriously recommend that anybody wanting a good argument for contractual interest try using the misrepresentation act s2. And on studying the subject in detail you will find that the judge almost always awards interest at contractual rate, almost always awards costs ect and on the face of it the whole subject is far less risky".


My question is - is this a valid argument - and if so can anyone point me in the direction of some info/case law to back it up. To my knowledge I haven't seen it on anyone else's poc's, but it seems like common sense and want to know if it is worth pursuing it as an argument.


Many thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Section 2 (1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 reverses the burden of proof from the claimant to the defendant.

Section 2 only applies to NON FRAUDULENT misrepresentation.


However, FRAUDULENT misrepresentation requires the claimant to prove - so if in doubt always apply principles of negligent/non fraudulent mis representation.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...