| CHAPTER 3 – VITIATING ELEMENTS | ||
| Topic | Case | Brief Description |
| Misrepresentation – One party aware only à Statement of fact | Smith v Land & House Property Corporation (1885) LR 28 Ch D 7 | 酒店出售(from Old Landlord to New Landlord)，明知房客經常遲交租但仍陳述房客優秀以吸引買家，官判該 false opinion (known in advance) is treated as statement of fact |
| Misrepresentation – Both parties aware à Statement of Opinion | Bissett v Wilkinson [1927] A.C. 177 | 賣牧埸方誇大該牧地可放養二千隻羊，買方知賣方無放牧經驗故其陳述不可信，官判雙方知情下不構成 misrepresentation |
| Induced – other party didn’t read | Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch .D 1. | 律師宣傳找合夥人，宣傳誇大生意預測，但表示附加資料可作預測憑證，準合夥人沒有看資料，簽了合夥約才發現虛假陳述，要求退夥 |
| Not Induced – independent verification involved | Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232, | 賣煤礦方跨大煤礦出產量，買方找第三者評估，第三者同意賣方出產量之陳述，買賣成交，官判買方非按賣方陳述成交，即不算 induced，故不能視其陳述為 misinterpretation |
| Induced – doesn’t require misrepresentation as the sole reason | Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) LR 29 Ch D 459 | 公司發售債券，宣傳冊子訛稱相關投資方向以吸引客戶，客戶被相關投資方向誤導購入(misrepresentation)，但同時亦因抱持錯誤對買債券之櫂益而購入（self mistake） |
| Misrepresentation – bars to rescission – Affirmation | Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753 | 甲買貨車後發現有問題，賣方乙與甲商討後雙方同意共同分擔維修並讓合約繼續，但其後貨車再損毀，甲要撤銷合約，官判其之前之妥協已表示在明知 misrepresentation 下仍 affirm the contract，故不能以 misinterpretation 為由撤銷 |
| Misrepresentation – bars to rescission – Lapse of time | Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 | 買畫五年後才發現非真跡 |
| Misrepresentation – bars to rescission – Innocent 3rd party | Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 | 車賣了給騙徙，騙徒後以合法方式賣給第三者 (innocent 3rd party) |
| Misrepresentation – Negligent | Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 | 甲為廣告代理，幫乙租用廣告位置，其後擔心乙有財困，找其銀行提供乙之財政狀況，銀行表示財政良好，其後乙破產，甲告該銀行提供粗疏陳述（negligent misrepresentation），官判因該陳述有 disclaimer免責故告不入。 |
| Misrepresentation – Negligent – BOP on representor | Howard Marine & Dredging Co. Ltd. v Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd. [1978] QB 574. | 包租船作挖掘研究，船吞吐量被跨大(negligent misrepresentation) ，官判representor 需shoulder burder of proof證明其數據參考正確 |
| Level of Damage – Tort of Deceit | Pepsi-Cola International Ltd. v Charles Lee [1974] HKLR 13 | 租客被誤導租約包屋外空地，故施工建造花園，後才知租約不包，官按 MO S3(1) tort of deceit計賠償 |
| Level of Damage – Tort of Deceit | Royscot Trust Ltd. v Rogerson and Another [1991] 2 Q.B. 297 | 車代理與客有租購（Hire Purchase）交易，找財務公司借貸，車代理向財務公司跨大車價及客之首期，客之後破產並將車賣予第三者，官判車代理需按 tort of deceit 計算賠償財務公司，包含 foreseeable loss or unforeseeable loss（按：此案客轉賣車當作 foreseeable loss to the Finance Company |
| Damage under MO s3(1) – tortious | East v Maurer [1991] 2 All E.R. 733 | 甲買下乙髮型屋，建基於乙表示其不會在附近開舖爭生意，但後來發現其反口並搶走甲生意 |
| Innocent Misrepresentation – damage in lieu if bar to rescission | Witter (Thomas) Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd. [1996] 2 All E.R. 573 | |
| Innocent Misrepresentation – damage in lieu if bar to rescission | Floods of Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd [2000] BLR 81 | |
| Innocent Misrepresentation – damage in lieu if bar to rescission | Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2333 | |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to existence of subject matter –fundamental – contract void | Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HLC 673 | A cargo of corn was in transit being shipped from the Mediterranean to England. The owner of the cargo sold the corn to a buyer in London. The cargo had however, perished and been disposed of (因航程中途某地方有動亂，船長需要將船上物資（包括該批穀物）用作救濟難民）before the contract was made. Both the seller and buyer are not aware of this. |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to existence of subject matter –fundamental – contract void | Galloway v Galloway (1914) 30 TLR 531. | A separation deed between a man and a woman, who mistakenly thought they were married to each other, was held to be void |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to existence of subject matter –fundamental – contract void | Griffith v Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434 | A contract for the hire of a room to watch the king’s coronation procession 加冕游行which had already been cancelled due to illness of the king was held to be void. |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to existence of subject matter –fundamental – contract void | Associated Japanese Bank (International) v Credit du Nord [1988] 3 All E.R. 902 | A guarantee relating to non-existent machinery was also held to be void |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to quality– not fundamental – contract not void | Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd. [1932] A.C.161 | 僱主與僱員達成提早解僱協議並付補償後發現僱員曾有操守問題，僱員也忘記並曾觸犯操守問題，僱主提出取消該提前解僱之協議（以取回有關補償），因若早知該僱員有操守問題，是會直接開除而不予補償。
原審法院及上訴法院判僱主勝訴，但到上议院 (House of Lords) 被推翻，即有關提前解僱協議不應取消，及維持原先給予僱員之補償，因支持取消該提前解僱協議之common mistake 不存在 |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to quality – not void | Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 | （雙方不知有租金管制）Mistake of not being aware of Rent Control |
| Mistake- Common Mistake as to quality – not void | Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (The Great Peace) [2003] QB 679, | 救援船被安排往某海上遇難點拯救受災船，此協議建基於對救援船之位置雙方認為接近受災船而訂下，後發現雙方錯誤理解救援船位置，而安排方欲找另一艘位置較近受災船之船代替 |
| Mistake- Common Mistake – void | Strickland v Turner [1852] | 甲幫乙買壽保，事前甲及保險公司都不知乙已死 |
| Mistake- Mutual Mistake | Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906
|
買賣棉花雙方誤會同名船之船期 |
| Mistake – Unilateral – Mistaken Identity fundamental to render the contract void (Innocent 3rd party lose) | Ingram v Little [1961] 1 Q.B. 31 | 歹徒偽稱別人開票買車再合法轉售第三者，售車方索償（因支票不能兌現），官判第三者敗訴（即無權擁有該車） |
| Mistake – Unilateral – Mistaken Identity not fundamental – contract not void (Innocent 3rd party win) | Lewis v Averay [1971] 3 All E.R. 907 | 歹徒偽稱某名人開票買車再合法轉售第三者，售車方索償（因支票不能兌現），官判售車方敗訴（即無權擁有該車） |
| Mistake – Unilateral – Mistaken Identity (Innocent 3rd party lose) | Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App. Cas. 459 | 歹徒冒稱某公司與毛巾售賣方購入一批毛巾，賣方將毛巾寄去賊提供之地址（與被冒稱的公司之地址不符），歹徒其後合法轉售予第三者，賣方上訴，官判賣方勝 |
| Mistake – Unilateral – Mistaken Identity fundamental – not face to face (but with written contract) – contract void (Innocent 3rd party lose) | Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson HL [2003] UKHL 62; [2004] 1 A.C. 919 | 歹徒將偷來的駕駛執照冒認他人向車行租購汽車，獲財務公司予租購合約，歹徒其後轉售第三者，官判第三者無汽車所有權 |
| Mistake – Unilateral – (HK Case) – | City Polytechnic of Hong Kong v Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance Ltd. [1994] 3 H.K.C. 423 | 藍十字撤回投票，城市理工（後轉名為城市大學）sue |
| Mistake – Unilateral – (HK case) – contract void | Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2005] 2 LRC 28 | 打印機售價出錯致搶購，售方拒絕訂購，官判訂購是明知標錯價而大量落訂，判該等訂購無效 |