Misrepresentation Act 1967

Mr_Norrell

kozlikha wrote: »

....
A) I couldn't have posted a registered letter as post offices were already closed on Friday
and
even if I could have sent a registered letter they wouldn't have received it on Saturday as they are closed on Saturdays
I think this is the one I was looking for all this time, a get out clause.

Misrepresentation was to do with them stating that we would not receive our diplomas unless we signed up to their association, but they weren't diplomas of membership, but certificates of memberships. Diploma of qualification we would have received regardless. Basically, they referred to certificates as diplomas, confused the hell out of me and by doing so forced me into signing something I didn't need in the first place.

So am I correct in summing this up: They told you (orally?) that you wouldn't receive your diplomas unless you signed up to their association. But, what they meant was that you had to sign up to their organisation to receive a certificate of membership, not your diploma. (this would presumably arrive separately?)

Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going to base my answer off the above.

Misrepresentation: A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to another, which, although not a term in the contract, induces the other party to enter the contract.

An actionable misrepresentation has to fulfil 3 requirements: I) a clear, false statement of fact; ii) to a contracting party; iii) that induced the contract.

The representation must be an unambiguous false statement of existing fact, which can be made by either conduct or words.

Existing fact is not: mere puff(1), statement of opinion(2) or a statement of intention(3).

A material fact is something which would influence a reasonable person into making a contract. In this case, the material fact is the representation that you wouldn't get your diploma unless you signed up to their association.

Inducement: the false statement must have induced the representee to enter into the contract. The requirements are: the representation must be material(see above) and it must have been relied upon (which it was, you say yourself you wouldn't have entered the contract otherwise)

A representation that is materially important is one that induces a person to enter into a contract(4)(5)

Classes of misrepresentation: I) Fraudulent, ii) negligent misrepresentation, iii) wholly innocent.
In this case, I think class I and II are irrelevant, here I think we're dealing with wholly innocent misrepresentation.

Innocent misrepresentation: A false statement made which the person making it honestly believes it to be true. Although the person making the statement has to show they: had reasonable grounds to believe it, and did believe up until the contract was made that the facts represented were true. (I think this fits best because, in my opinion, it's likely they made a mistake with the words diploma and certificate, like you indicate).

Therefore rescission should be possible under equity.

Table of cases
(1) Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App
(2) Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
(3) Wales v Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199
(4) Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties [2002] 4 All ER 494

(5) JEB Fasteners Ltd v Mark Bloom & Co [FONT=Times New Roman, serif][1990] 36 EG 114.[/FONT]

PLEASE NOTE: This is a best guess answer and should not be construed as legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. You should seek your own legal advice.

romik

Thanks for all the advice guys. I think I have a chance here, but I sense the way to have done it properly was to counter sue them, using other witnesses, as there's bound to be others that feel that they were missold this.

hollydays

He's also a member of the EWI
Expert witness institute..
http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?1209

Bantex_2

romik wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice guys. I think I have a chance here, but I sense the way to have done it properly was to counter sue them, using other witnesses, as there's bound to be others that feel that they were missold this.

Have you changed your name?

bod1467

Bantex wrote: »

Have you changed your name?

I'm sure someone else posted this morning saying something very similar, but their post seems to have disappeared.

paddyrg

I'd try my arm with the courts -

a contract you have to cancel before it starts isn't going to go down well with a judge, and indeed they may find the notice period unreasonable in itself.

Combined with the language and implication that 'you don't get your diploma if you don't sign up today' (creating an artificial time pressure and misleading/opaque use of the term 'diploma' to promote a body immediately related to the training house) I could see a reasonable person taking a dim view of the agreement's circumstances.

Have you paid the second year's money (in which case small claims court) or not (tell them to sue you for it, see if they ever do - and want to get themselves in court to test the terms of their agreement and coercive selling)

kozlikha

Sounds reassuring, thanks. Thanks all BTW.

I am thinking of giving them a call to try and mediate it. I just sent the court and them a copy of that letter regarding my look at this backed by one witness that confirms in her email that she believed she wouldn't be receiving a Diploma of qualification unless she signed up to their association, which she did do and also feels thta she was misled and because of that prssured into signing the agreement.

To mediate I was going to tell them the folowing three options:

1) Withdraw the claim & consider the agreement to be rescined between two parties. No more actions from neither of the parties;

2) Continue with claim and lose. That wold strengthen my case to seek out other ex-students that would piossibly join in to initiate a joint claim against the insitute for misrepresentation; I would also send result of ruling to some newspapapers and social media.

3) Continute with claim and win, then I would definetely lose a bit of money, but will be very driven to find other ex-students that feel hard done by the institute;

kozlikha

I haven't changed my name.

bod1467

kozlikha wrote: »

I haven't changed my name.

Really? So who's this then? (Responding as if this is his/her thread)

romik wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice guys. I think I have a chance here, but I sense the way to have done it properly was to counter sue them, using other witnesses, as there's bound to be others that feel that they were missold this.

kozlikha

bod1467 wrote: »

Really? So who's this then? (Responding as if this is his/her thread)

Oh yes, sorry, it's a share computer in the family LOL