BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc.

BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc.

The presumption of inducement in fraudulent misrepresentation is a strong evidential presumption but does not reverse the legal burden of proof; the representee must prove inducement, and it is not enough to show they might have acted differently. For transferred loss, recovery is only possible if the contract was made with a known object to benefit the third party, which was not the case here.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten; Defendant/respondent: Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Inducement, Rescission, Transferred Loss, Damages, Privity of Contract
Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Inducement Rescission Transferred Loss Damages Privity of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten

Claimant/appellant

Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement for inducement in fraudulent misrepresentation differs from non-fraudulent cases and the burden of proof involved
  2. 2 Whether the representee must prove they would not have contracted but for the misrepresentation or if it suffices that the representation influenced their decision
  3. 3 Whether NIVE could recover losses suffered by a third party (Henningsen) under the principle of transferred loss

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of inducement in fraudulent misrepresentation is a strong evidential presumption but does not reverse the legal burden of proof; the representee must prove inducement, and it is not enough to show they might have acted differently. For transferred loss, recovery is only possible if the contract was made with a known object to benefit the third party, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • First appeal (inducement/fraudulent misrepresentation) dismissed
  • Second appeal (transferred loss) dismissed