Law Embracing 'Misrepresentation' In Contracts

Introduction(2) the active concealment of a fact by one
The importance of the term 'misrepresentation'having knowledge or belief of the fact;
can be inferred from the fact that "free consent"(3) a promise made without any intention of
which is inevitable for an agreement to beperforming it;
enforceable under Section 14 of Indian Contract(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
Act, 1872 is rendered negative if(5) any such act or omission as the law specially
misrepresentation is proved. In other words,declares to be fraudulent.
misrepresentation to any party in a contract soExplanation: Mere silence as to facts likely to
as to induce them for consent renders theaffect the willingness of a person to enter into a
contract void.contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of
Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (thethe case are such that, regard being had to them,
"Contract Act") defines misrepresentation. Thisit is the duty of the person keeping silence to
section is quoted below:speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent
"Misrepresentation" means and includes -to speech.
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner notIllustration
warranted by the information of the person(a) A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A
making it, of that which is not true, though heknows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about
believes it to be true;the horse's unsoundness. This is not fraud in A.
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent toDistinction:-
deceive, gains an advantage to the personAs we can infer from the Indian Contract Act,
committing it, or any one claiming under him, bymisrepresentation is an innocent act of deceit
misleading another to his prejudice, or to thewhereas fraud inevitably includes the intention to
prejudice of any one claiming under him;deceive. As the deception is deliberate, the
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to ancontract becomes void after fraud is proved
agreement, to make a mistake as to thewhereas in case of misrepresentation the
substance of the thing which is the subject of thecontract is voidable at the option of the party
agreement."deceived. However, both are forms of undue
With regard to contract, the general principal isinfluence as per Section 16 of Indian Contract Act.
that if one party has induced the other to enterBellachi (Dead) by LR Vs. Pakeeran JT 2009(4) SC
into a contract by misrepresentation, though298
innocently of any material fact specially within hisSubject matter of the suit was a deed of sale
own knowledge, the party misled can avoid thedated 7th October, 1999 executed by the
contract. The party who was induced bypetitioner in favour of the respondent. The
misrepresentation to enter into a contract, hasamount of consideration was shown therein to be
two remedies open to him; (i) to elect to rescinda sum of Rs. 20,000/.Contention of the appellant
the contract, or (ii) to seek enforcement ofin the said suit was that the said deed of sale is
representation and insist upon being placed in thevitiated by misrepresentation, undue influence,
same position as if the contract was performedfraud and collusion as she was made to believe
by claiming damages."that she would obtain financial assistance by
Under Section 19 of the Contract Act, the rightexecuting the said document. According to her,
of rescission is available where consent is causedshe had reposed complete faith and trust in her
by misrepresentation.brother who used to visit her place often. The
Section 19 of the Contract Act provides forlaw does not envisage raising of a presumption in
voidability of agreements without free consent.favour of undue influence. A party alleging the
This section is quoted below:same must prove the same subject of course to
"When consent to an agreement is caused byjust exceptions. Hence, the plaint was dismissed.
coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, theState of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. All India
agreement is a contract voidable at the option ofManufaturers Organization and Ors. AIR 2006 SC
the party whose consent was so caused.1846
A party to a contract, whose consent wasState of Karnataka decided to take up
caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he"Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project"
thinks fit, insist that the contract shall bewith a consortium. For the very same,
performed, and that he shall be put in the positionMemorandum of understanding (MOU) was
in which he would have been if theentered into between the petitioner and a
representations made had been true.consortium of companies.Government order (GO)
Exception: If such consent was caused bywas also passed. Members of consortium entered
misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent withininto an agreement for assigning their respective
the meaning of section 17, the contract,rights under the GO and MOU in favour of Nandi
nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whoseInfrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. Nandi
consent was so caused had the means ofsubmitted a framework agreement (FWA) which
discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.was approved by the petitioner.One of the key
Explanation: A fraud or misrepresentation whichobligations of petitioner under FWA was to make
did not cause the consent to a contract of theland available.Karnataka Industrial Areas
party on whom such fraud was practiced, or toDevelopment Board entered into an agreement
whom such misrepresentation was made, doeswith Nandi for acquisition of private land.
not render a contract voidable."Henceforth, notifications were issued.FWA was
Illustration:challenged in public interest writ petition. The
A, by a misrepresentation, leads B erroneously topetitioner took the plea that they had given their
believe that five hundred mounds of indigo areconsent due to misrepresentation by Nandi. The
made annually at A's factory. B examines theinference drawn by the High Court was that the
accounts of the factory, which show that onlyplea of fraud and misrepresentation sought to be
four hundred mounds of indigo have been made.raised was not only an afterthought but also false
After this B buys the factory. The contract is notto the knowledge of the State Government. The
voidable on account of A's misrepresentationHigh Court, therefore, observed (vide Paragraph
because of lack of 'due diligence'.27): "It is unfortunate that the petitioners and the
Section 19A of Indian Contract Act, 1872 statesState Government have chosen to raise this
that:-bogie (sic- bogey) to defeat the public project
"When consent to an agreement is caused bysubserving public interest. On appeal, Supreme
undue influence, the agreement is a contractCourt upheld the view of High Court regarding the
voidable at the option of the party whoseplea of misrepresentation.
consent was so caused. Any such contract mayUnion of India and Ors. Vs. R.P. Yadav AIR 2000
be set aside absolutely or, if the party who wasSC 2252
entitled to avoid it has received any benefitA contract had been entered between Indian
thereunder, upon such terms and conditions as tonavy and artificial apprentice. The question dealt
the Court may seem just".with was whether artificer apprentice of Indian
A Comparative Study of Correlation BetweenNavy who had been given re-engagement for
Misrepresentation and Sale Of Goodscertain period after obtaining his consent for it
Section 3 of the Sale of Goods Act states that:entitled to withdraw consent and demand his
"The unrepealed provisions of the Contract Actrelease from force as of right. It is the case of
save in so far as they are inconsistent with therespondant in his writ petition that he agreed to
express provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, shallbe reengaged was based on the
continue to apply to contracts for the sale ofmisrepresentation on the part of the appellants to
goods".him that he had only completed 11 years of
Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930pensionable service and that he required another
provides the difference between 'condition' andfour years to earn the pension. As such, it was
'warranty' and read as follows:-contended he had a right to rescind the contract
"12. Condition and warranty, - (1) A stipulation in aunder Section 19 of the Contract Act. The
contract of sale with reference to goods whichappellants by sending Raj Kumar the "Expiry of
are the subject thereof may be a condition or aEngagement Serial" expressly represented to him
warranty.that he had put in only 11 years of pensionable
(2) A condition is a stipulation essential to the mainservice and that he should apply for extension for
purpose of the contract, the breach of whichfour years to qualify for pension. Therefore, the
gives rise to a right to treat the contract ascourt held that the consent of artificial apprentice
repudiated.was obtained through misrepresentation.
(3) A warranty is a stipulation collateral to theSri Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhminder Singh AIR 1998
main purpose of the contract, the breach ofSC 1400
which gives rise to a claim for damages but notParties entered into a contract for sale of certain
to a right to reject the goods and treat theland and certain amount was paid to petitioner as
contract as repudiated.earnest money. Suit for specific performance filed
(4) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is awhen petitioner did not execute sale deed and
condition or a warranty depends in each case ondecreed by Trial Court. In appeal Additional District
the construction of the contract. A stipulation mayJudge observed that both parties suffered from
be a condition, though called a warranty in themistake of fact as to area of land and sale.
contract".Consideration was already paid by the respondent.
Further, Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act,Decree for specific performance was not passed
1930 provides when 'condition' to be treated asbut decree for refund of earnest money was
`warranty', relevant part of sub-section (1) & (2)passed which was confirmed by High Court and
thereof reads as under:-Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld that
"13. When condition to be treated as warranty. -the respondent was subjected to
(1) Where a contract of sale is subject to anymisrepresentation by the petitioner as the latter
condition to be fulfilled by the seller, the buyermade a false promise to sell the disputed
may waive the condition or elect to treat theproperty.
breach of the condition as a breach of warrantyM/s. Arosan Enetrprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
and not as a ground for treating the contract asAnr. AIR 1999 SC 3804
repudiated.The factual score depicts that on 24th October,
(2) Where a contract of sale is not severable and1989, the appellant furnished a performance bank
the buyer has accepted the goods or partguarantee for $ 29,28,000 and upon bank
thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilledguarantee being furnished, the Government of
by the seller can only be treated as a breach ofIndia assigned the contract to the Food
warranty and not as a ground for rejecting theCorporation of India (FCI) under Clause 20 of the
goods and treating the contract rejecting theAgreement. FCI also in its turn opened a Letter of
goods and treating the contract as repudiated,Credit for the full value of the contract though,
unless there is a term of the contract, express orhowever, as the records depict that while on 26th
implied, to that effect."October, 1989, the Letter of Credit was opened
Distinction Between Misrepresentation and Fraud:by FCI but its authentication was not effected
Clearing the Imbrogliowithin the delivery date i.e. 31st October, 1989.
Definition of Fraud as per Indian Contract Act,Point to be noted is that the Bank, can not, by
1872:merely stating that there was non-supply of
Section 17:- "Fraud" means and includes any ofgoods by the appellant, use the words "fraud or
the following acts committed by a party to amisrepresentation" for purposes of coming under
contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent,the exception. The dispute as to non-supply of
with intent to deceive another party thereto orgoods was a matter between the seller and
his agent, or to induce him to enter into thebuyer and did not, as stated in the above
contract:decision, provide any cause of action for the Bank
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is notagainst the seller.
true by one who does not believe it to be true;