“Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit; Contract — Misrepresentation Act; Tort — Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy; Companies — Incorporation of companies — Lifting corporate veil”
“Limitation of actions — Particular causes of action — Claim for damages under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 — Section 6(1) Limitation Act 1959; Limitation of Actions — Particular causes of action — Claim for equitable rescission of contract — Section 6(7) Limitation Act 1959; Limitation of Actions — Postpo”
“Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraud and deceit; Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [Negligent misrepresentation; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act”
“tions were made fraudulently, with knowledge of falseness or at least with recklessness. Even if these were not fraudulent misrepresentations, they were misrepresentations actionable under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) or were negligently made, and thus actionable in tort.”
“new and were not in original packaging. The plaintiff asserted that the first defendant had made fraudulent misrepresentations which entitled the plaintiff to repudiate the contracts under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). The plaintiff asserted that it rescinded the contract in or about October”
“The plaintiff alleged that Atlas Food well knew the representations were false or were recklessly made not caring whether they were true or false. It relied on s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (the “Misrepresentation Act”).”
“presentation; and (c) the defendant suffered damage (see Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 at [14] regarding fraudulent misrepresentation; and s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) regarding statutory liability for misrepresentation).”
“Other issues raised by the pleadings include the question whether Tan has a claim against Toh for negligent misrepresentation at common law and/or under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the MA”). The question also arises whether Tan can seek contribution or indemnity from Toh. I will address each in t”
“Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Express terms”
“de a fraudulent misrepresentation, Airtrust would have been entitled (provided the requisite evidence was forthcoming) to a generous measure of damages pursuant to the common law and/or s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (see, generally, the decision of this court in RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Def”
“Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) does not alter the common law as to what constitutes a misrepresentation (Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 at [23]). It does, however, r”
“Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Contract] — [Breach] — [Anticipatory breach; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Implied terms; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Exclusion clauses”
“the facilities would be accessible and usable by members of the public, which turned out to be contrary to the URA’s use restriction. In the alternative, the plaintiff claims damages under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act in the event these three representations were not fraudulent.”
“irtue of fraudulent misrepresentations made by Macquarie and/or Mr Wolfe, alternatively, their material non-disclosure of certain matters. In the further alternative, Graceland relies upon s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (c 7) (UK).”
“n the respondent’s misrepresentations. Should the respondent be found liable for innocent misrepresentation rather than fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed), then the appellant submitted that it would be entitled to an indemnity of”
“Mr Toh. The Judge held that Mr Tan could claim a 50% contribution from Mr Toh because of their relative culpability. The Judge dismissed Mr Tan’s claim against Mr Toh in misrepresentation because the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) did not apply and Mr Toh did not owe Mr Tan a duty of care (Judgment at [33”
“s to enter into the Subscription Agreement between the plaintiffs, the defendant, Mr Chi and SIPL. The plaintiffs are not claiming rescission of the contract on grounds of misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). Instead the claim is predicated on s 2(1) which states:”
“The Misrepresentation Act allows a representee to claim damages for any non-fraudulent misrepresentation in respect of which he could have recovered damages had the misrepresentation been fraudulent. The remedy is only availa”
“(c) damages to be assessed with respect to the plaintiff’s failure to issue further annexures to the first defendant, including damages for misrepresentation pursuant to s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Misrepresentation Act”); and”
“(b) damages for misrepresentation pursuant to s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed), or in the alternative;”
“been induced by a misrepresentation, whether innocent, negligent or fraudulent, the party induced by the misrepresentation to enter into the contract may elect to rescind or affirm it: see s 1 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). It is also clear that a misrepresentation which would justify rescission o”
“LSI has relied on fraudulent misrepresentation, liability pursuant to s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the MA”) and innocent misrepresentation. It is not pursuing its claim for negligent misstatement.”
“On the assumption that the law of Singapore is applicable to part of the dispute (DDPL brought an alternative claim under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”)), it was necessary to consider whether the action had “no substantial connection” with Singapore. The fact that DDPL is a S”
“Saimee also made reference to recourse pursuant to s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”) in his statement of claim. However, apart from one or two statements claiming recourse under Misrepresentation Act, there were no details provided and”
“Contract] — [Breach; Contract] — [Contractual terms] — [Implied terms; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Tort] — [Misrepresentation; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Breach of duty; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Causation; Tort] — [Negligence] — [Duty of care”
“Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Restitution] — [Unjust enrichment”
“ings. She contends Dr Lee made misrepresentations on the evening of 20 January 2012 and seeks rescission of her $2m investment or, in the alternative, damages in the sum of $2m pursuant to s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”). In the alternative, she contends that Dr Lee’s a”
“Banking] — [Advice] — [Negligent; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Credit and Security] — [Mortgage of personal property] — [Life insurance policies; Damages] — [Measure of damages] — [Tort; Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [Inducement; Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [”
“that Goh made fraudulent misrepresentations under common law that induced her to enter the 1st MOU (as amended). Further, or in the alternative, the misrepresentations fell under ss 1 and 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“MA”). She sought a declaration that the 1st MOU (as amended) was validly”
“er it was fraudulent, negligent or innocent. Second, he argued that the failure to plead that it had suffered any loss as a result of misrepresentation meant that AIL cannot claim under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed).”
“nd left the plaintiff high and dry. The plaintiff’s claims in the present suit were based primarily on the defendants’ alleged liability for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation or on s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that the 1st defendant had committed “repudiatory breaches””
“(b) alternatively, that they are jointly and/or severally liable in respect of the misrepresentations made to him under “section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act”.”
“On 15 July 2019, the Plaintiffs commenced Suit 709 against the Defendants for the torts of conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation and misrepresentation under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”).”
“n incorporated into the contract or otherwise, obviated Grande’s cause of action in misrepresentation. As we highlighted in Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd [2005] 3 SLR(R) 283 at [76], s 1 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) states that:”
“n the course of 2016 and relied upon by the plaintiffs. That case is advanced at common law on the basis that the said representations were made fraudulently or negligently and/or under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (the “Misrepresentation Act”).”
“In light of his findings, the trial judge discussed the claims of negligent misrepresentation at common law and the statutory cause of action under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”) holding, for reasons not under challenge, that the common law and the Misrepresentation Act of Si”
“s counterclaim in misrepresentation must be dismissed. As I have found that there was no reliance by Prosper Marine on the Representations, there is no basis for an alternative claim under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). Prosper Marine is accordingly liable for outstanding charter hire fees due”
“Companies] — [Fraudulently inducing investment; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraudulent; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act”
“of the Villa had been disclosed. The Plaintiffs allege that the representations were false, and that they were made fraudulently or recklessly or, if not, in circumstances attracting relief under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). They allege that they relied on the representations in entering into the A”
“he claims pleaded in the defendant’s statement of claim encompassed the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, the statutory tort of negligent misrepresentation inducing a contract under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), innocent misrepresentation under s 2(2) of the Act and the com”
“by the first defendant fraudulently and induced them to enter into the CNSAs with the Company. The plaintiffs accordingly claim damages against the first defendant in the tort of deceit or under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed). Each plaintiff accordingly seeks an order that the first defendant pay to h”
“— [Duties of agent] — [Care, skill and diligence; Agency] — [Duties of agent] — [Breach; Companies] — [Fraudulently inducing investment; Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraud and deceit; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act; Equity] — [Fiduciary relationships] — [When arising; Equity] — [Fiduciary relationships] — [Duties”
“(c) damages for misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap. 390, 1994 Rev Ed); and”
“performance or the Myanmar Energy Project. Finally, he argued that TCH is a sophisticated trader and could not have relied on any of the Alleged Representations. Tan’s claim under Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“Misrepresentation Act”) is unsustainable because the Alleged Representati”
“ent; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Rescission] — [Affirmation; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Whether sufficient particulars pleaded; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Silence; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act] — [Section 2(1); Contract] — [Remedies] — [Mitigation of damage] [Credit and Security] — [Guarant”
“ever, was thereafter remitted to Mr Millsopp’s account in the UK. Mr Millsopp thus sued Mr Then and others, for misrepresentation (for fraudulent misrepresentation, alternatively for relief under the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)), breach of contract, conspiracy, conversion, a trust over the Funds, and u”
“Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraudulent; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Negligent; Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Inducement; Contract] — [Misrepresentation Act] — [Section 2(1)][Evidence] — [Admissibility of evidence] — [Hearsay; Tort] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraud and deceit; Tort] — [Misrepresentation”