1

Table of contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction 1 Deceit or Fraud 2 Negligent misstatements 4 Innocent misrepresentation 6 Conclusion 7 Bibliography 8

1.Introduction
The word tort has been derived from the latin term 'tortum', which means 'to twist'. It includes that conduct which is not straight or lawful, but, on the other hand , twisted , crooked or unlawful. Liability for Misstatements discusses the liability of a erson, arising in three different ways for false statements made by him. 1. Liability for !eceit or "raud# $hen a erson knowingly makes a false statement of fact making another erson to suffer loss by acting on the statement , it may amount to the tort of !eceit or "raud. 2. Liability for %egligent Misstatements# If a statement has been made honestly but negligently , that is , without caring to see whether the same is true or not, liability for such negligent misstatement may also arise. &. Liability for Innocent Misre resentation# $hen a erson makes a false statement but there is neither an

&

intention to deceive , nor any negligence in making the statement, there is no liability for such a statement.

'

2.Deceit or Fraud
The wrong of deceit consists in willfully making a false statement with an intent to induce the laintiff to act u on it and is actionable when the laintiff suffers damage by acting u on the same. The following essentials are re(uired to be roved in an action for deceit) 1."alse statement of fact There must be a false statement of fact to make the defendant liable for fraud. In Edington v.Fitzmaurice1, the directors of a com any raised loan by issuing debentures. The ur ose mentioned by the directors was the com letion of buildings of the com any and also the develo ment of the com any's business. In fact, the money so borrowed was to be utili*ed for aying ressing liabilities. The directors were held liable for fraud. 2. +nowledge about the "alsity of the ,tatement To make the defendant liable, it has to be roved that the defendant either knew that the statement is false or did not believe in its truth. -n honest man cannot be considered to be fraudulent. Therefore, if the defendant honestly believes that the statement is true, there can be no deceit. Mere negligence in making a false statement will not make a erson liable for deceit. Derry v. Peek2, is an authority for this ro osition. In that case , the directors of a tramway com any issued a ros ectus containing a statement that the com any had been em owered to use steam ower instead of the animal ower. Their right to use the steam ower was sub.ect to
1. /10012 23 4h. !. '13 2. /10032 1' -.4. &&5

the consent of the 6oard of Trade. ,uch consent was not given but it was believed that the consent would be granted. 6ut the 6oard refused for the consent and the com any had to be wound u . The laintiff who had taken u shares on the faith of the statement by the directors in the ros ectus , brought an action against them for fraud. The defendant was not held liable as they honestly believed in the truth of the statement made by them. &. Intention to deceive the laintiff The defendant must make the re resentation with an intention that the laintiff should rely and act u on the re resentation. In Langridge v. Levy3, the laintiff's father urchased a gun which was said by the sho kee er to be of a celebrated manufacturer. The gun bursted while being used by the laintiff by the laintiff and he was in.ured. The laintiff could successfully sue in fraud because the statement made by the defendant was intended to be and was communicated to the laintiff on which he had acted. '. The laintiff must be actually deceived There is no fraud until the the laintiff has been actually misled by acting on the statement and has suffered damage. In Horsfall v. T omas !, the laintiff sued the defendant for the rice of the gun which he sold to the defendant after fraudulently lugging a defect in it. The defendant refused to ay on the that he had been defrauded. It was held that there was no fraud as it was the defendant who had not e7amined the gun while urchasing.

&. /10&52 2 M 8 $. 113 ) '9 :.:. 903 '. /10922 1 ;. 8 4. 2<= 1&< :.:. &3'.

3. Negligent Misstatements
It has been noted earlier that when defendant has

deliberately made a false statement and caused loss to the laintiff, who relied and acted on the statement, the defendant would be liable for fraud. In 1003, in Derry v. Peek, the ;ouse of Lords decided that there could be no liability for deceit in res ect of a dishonest statement. This decision was subse(uently understood to mean that there could be no liability at all for a mere negligent misstatement = for the ur ose of liability , the statement must be deceitful. In Le Lievre v. "ould#, the laintiff gave some loan on the mortgage of a certain ro erty on the basis of a certificate given by the defendant. >ould who was a surveyor, had given this certificate to the builder of the ro erty, who had em loyed him. The laintiff sued the defendant on the basis of false certificate issued by him. It was held that there could be no action for mere negligence. -n action could lie if there was fraud. It was -lso observed that according to the decision in Derry v. Peek , in the absence of contract, an action for negligence cannot be maintained when there is no fraud. 6rowen , L.?. observed that the law of @ngland Adoes not consider that what a man writes on a a er is like a gun or other dangerous instrument, and , unless he intended to deceive , the law does not , in the absence of a
1. /103&2 1 B.6. '31.

contract ,hold him res onsible for drawing his certificate carelessly.

4. Innocent Misrepresentation
$hen a erson makes a false statement but there is neither an intention to deceive , nor any negligence in making the statement, there is no liability for such a statement under law of torts because in such a case an action cannot lie either for CfraudD, or for C%egligent MisstatementD. In @ngland, the Misre resentation -ct, 1395, however , ermits the award of com ensation for such innocent false statements. The com ensation under the -ct is awarded when there is misre resentation and the arties make a contract on that basis. The act sti ulates the right to claim com ensation in case of non#fraudulent re resentation in the same way as would have been there if there had been fraud.

Conclusion
Eassing misstatements against or for any body is a art of a civil wrong. This thing can result into a defamation. It has been noted earlier that when defendant has deliberately made a false statement and caused loss to the laintiff, who relied and acted on the statement, the defendant would be liable for fraud. This can lead a erson to loose his whole social or familiar status. The circumstances caused by this can even lead to mental trauma . ,o L-$ F" TF:T, have ke t a s ecial rovision for rotectin oneDs soul from mental distress or any social lose caused by Misstatements.

1<

6ibliogra hy >oogle search @ngine Law of Torts, :attan Lal and !hira. Lal Law of Torts, :. +. 6angia