22 Dec 2016
Summary judgment was declined because the defendant established an arguable defence that the vendors' advertising representation that the childcare centre had a 'waiting list' was a misrepresentation capable of inducing him to enter the contract and of materially affecting the benefit of the bargain under s7(4), creating a real issue for trial.
4 Apr 2011
There was no evidential foundation that OPM had authority from VSTL to arrange finance or to bind VSTL in respect of financing or solicitor engagement; available evidence showed OPM acted as marketing/sales agent only and managed a team of independent service providers for purchasers; absent specific authority it is commercially implausible to treat OPM as 'standing in the shoes' of VSTL or as an 'agent to know'; the Masons' allegations were speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment, so judgment was entered for VSTL.