We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

THREE ISSUES IN MISREPRESENTATION

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

THREE ISSUES IN MISREPRESENTATION

Edwin Peel*

The C Challenger
The decision of the Court of Appeal in SK Shipping Europe Ltd v Capital VLCC 3 Corp (The C Challenger) 1 raises three noteworthy issues in the law of misrepresentation and its application to the facts of the case. The first is whether the defendant had any right to rescind for misrepresentation and is the latest consideration by the courts of the interrelationship between representations and warranties, in circumstances where they cover the same subject matter. The second and third are whether the defendant had lost the right to rescind, and the consequences thereof, either by way of affirmation, or in the exercise of the court’s discretion under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, s.2(2). In the event, the Court of Appeal agreed with Foxton J at first instance,2 that the defendant had no right to rescind in the first place, so that anything said in relation to the second and third issues is obiter dictum. The Court was particularly reluctant to commit to a view as to the correctness of Foxton J’s application of the 1967 Act, which is the most intriguing aspect of the case. Although all three issues arise in the context of a charterparty, none of them
Case and comment

375

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click login button.

Login