Edwards v Ashik

Edwards v Ashik

The judge erred by focusing on what the claimant would have done if told the truth, rather than whether there was positive evidence that the misrepresentation did not materially induce the claimant to contract. The presumption of inducement was not rebutted. Continued business use of the premises was not an unequivocal affirmation in light of ongoing correspondence reserving rights and threatening legal action. The claimant retained the right to rescind the contract for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Richard Edwards; Defendant/respondent: Jahit Ahmet Ashik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment From Central London County Court on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Affirmation, Inducement, Pre Contract Enquiries
Contract Law Property Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Affirmation Inducement Pre Contract Enquiries

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

Richard Edwards

Claimant/appellant

Jahit Ahmet Ashik

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment From Central London County Court on Preliminary Issues

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 the claimant would have done if told the truth, rather than whether there was positive evidence that the misrepresentation did not materially induce the claimant to contract. The presumption of inducement was not rebutted. Continued business use of the premises was not an unequivocal affirmation in light of ongoing correspondence reserving rights and threatening legal action. The claimant retained the right to rescind the contract for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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