Hamilton v Allied Domecq [2007]

Facts

  • A company was invested in by the claimant, who assumed that his plans to market the defendant’s bottled water products in a certain way would be followed
  • Following investment, the defendant followed an entirely order xanax online canada different distribution strategy which caused his shares to become worthless

Issue

  • Could the contracted be rescinded for misrepresentation?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • No duty to volunteer information (such as intentions) into a contract, therefore no misrepresentation
RELATED CASE  Foakes v Beer [1884]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 27th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy