Talk:Vitiating factors in the law of contract

Started with a few stubs and pasting from other pages. Please let me know if anyone is interested in seeing something particular. Wik idea 13:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a para aside

I've no idea where this came from, but am just putting it here for the moment. Ironically, the first sentence misrepresents the law! Wik idea 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

There are two types of misrepresentation in contract law, fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party in question knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.

”

The best way to continue this page

As it is currently, the page only serves to link to important cases, without tying in together how they all fit together, and how misrepresentation as a whole is looked at. Should this page have remedies for misrep, bars to rescission, some info on how the misrep act has lessened the ambit of the tort of deceit, etc? RichsLaw (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. These articles are basic frameworks split off from the main contract articles - misrepresentation edited down to Misrepresentation in English law, contract down to English contract law, so on. My thinking is that we should start by working on the basic articles (misrepresentation) and then the central ones (contract). Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'll work on this one then. RichsLaw (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different issue, it seems that Misrepresentation pretty much represents the English law on misrepresentation. Should that not be the case, given that it arguably should be a world view? RichsLaw (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is indeed that it should give a world view, although we've had difficulties with that in the past. The idea of all these spinoffs is that the spinoffs will contain the law of particular legal systems, and ideally the main article on misrep will eventually be a "worldwide" view saying "countries X and Y (links to their misrep articles) take this view, while country Z (link) takes that". Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose a merger between Misrepresentation in English law and Misrepresentation. There is a substantial overlap, not to mention a need for a rewrite and update. There is a further page, Misrepresentation Act 1967 which is a bit curious, but it may as well stay for the moment, albeit that it needs a bit more editorial critique if it is to stand as an encyclopaedic page. Arrivisto (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now substantially updated and pruned the Misrepresentation page, which I propose to be the main page. This Misrepresentation in English law page has much that is good with lots of sources, but there are a number of errors and several off-topic items. I suggest the best approach is to take the best stuff out and add it to the main page, and convert this into a page on Vitiating factors in the law of contract. Arrivisto (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]