Edwards v Ashik [2014] EWHC 2454 (Ch) (24 July 2014)

Edwards v Ashik [2014] EWHC 2454 (Ch) (24 July 2014)

The judge erred by focusing on what Mr Edwards would have done if told the truth, rather than whether there was positive evidence that he was not materially induced by the misrepresentation. The presumption of inducement was not rebutted. Continued business use of the premises, in the context of ongoing correspondence threatening legal action for fraud, was not an unequivocal act of affirmation. Mr Edwards retained the right to rescind the contract.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2454 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Edwards; Respondent/defendant: Mr Ashik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order on Preliminary Issues After Trial at Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Affirmation and Election, Inducement, Remedies for Misrepresentation
Contract Law Property Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Affirmation and Election Inducement Remedies for Misrepresentation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Edwards

Appellant/claimant

Mr Ashik

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order on Preliminary Issues After Trial at Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were actionable misrepresentations as pleaded
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was induced by and relied upon the misrepresentations in entering into the agreements
  3. 3 Whether the claimant lost the right to rely on the misrepresentations by affirmation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by focusing on what Mr Edwards would have done if told the truth, rather than whether there was positive evidence that he was not materially induced by the misrepresentation. The presumption of inducement was not rebutted. Continued business use of the premises, in the context of ongoing correspondence threatening legal action for fraud, was not an unequivocal act of affirmation. Mr Edwards retained the right to rescind the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Findings on inducement and affirmation set aside
  • Matter of legal effect of actionable misrepresentation remitted to Central London County Court if not agreed by parties