Home Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Justifiable Reliance Materiality in Tort Law

Justifiable Reliance Materiality in Tort Law

Justifiable reliance represents the core to any charge of misrepresentation and nondisclosure, as it represents the specific standard to which a representative relationship can be ascertained to the point of legal responsibility. Justifiable reliance, simply put, indicates the extent to which one can be held to have relied on the representations of another. 
In tortious claims, it refers to the extent than one can hold another party liable for their misrepresentations. As an example, if one purchases a product that guarantees that it will wash your car, the buyer is entitled to certain level of justifiable reliance on the belief that it will do as advertised. 
If the product actually removes the paint from your car, then the level of justifiable reliance will guarantee a high level of liability on the makers of the product, who misrepresented its effects to the degree that the buyer sustained a significant loss (the damage done to car).
 
For justifiable reliance to pertain directly to liability, it must be said to have an acceptable level of materiality. Materiality means that the product or service’s selling point must have a precise bearing on the nature of what is represented and the part that it plays in determining its ability to be purchased. 
It does not necessarily have to represent something solid, but an action or an effect.  Materiality could also be extended to services enacted by an individual: say you actually paid someone to actually wash your car. The actually washing of the car still represents the materiality, whether it is a person or product that does it.
 
Generally a key part of determining justifiable reliance on a product or service is the effect its materiality holds for other similar minded people. Car washing is a material promise because it is something that could be expected by everyone, as help as condition of purchase by any two, like-minded individuals. 
If however, one person felt that in order for someone to be paid to wash his or her car, that person had to be blond, that would be specific to them, and would not constitute a form of justifiable reliance. Simply put, it would be immaterial.
 
So, justifiable reliance, and its basis on materiality, forms a key part when determining whether misrepresentation or nondisclosure has occurred. If the product guarantees a material promise, then an individual is entitled to expect that the product will fulfill that promise, in the form of justifiable reliance. 
If the product does not fulfill that obligation, either because the seller or creator misrepresented its ability, or failed to disclose an element that would prevent it from fulfilling that promise then they have not adhered to the promise of justifiable reliance. Under tort law, if that failure of justifiable reliance on the part of the seller has led to a loss on the part of the buyer, then they are able to hold the seller responsible for that loss (even if that loss represents something as small as a refund on the purchase).

Opinion and Intention in Tort Law

Opinion and Intention in Tort Law

Where the conditions that are used to determine situations of misrepresentation and nondisclosure become somewhat murky lies in the role that is played by the somewhat abstract roles opinion and intention play in tort law and product representation. 
 
Determining intent can play an important role when determining with issues of misrepresentation, because it remains integral to determining whether misrepresentation would have occurred.  To put things very simply, intent, on both sides of representation issue, is the dictation of what on expected to receive from a transaction.  
If the individual entered into a deal, forgetting a key piece of information that either would have proved vital to the injured party’s decision to undertake an agreement, or otherwise simply failed to realize its importance, he could be found less culpable in the situation because the individual entered the transaction with intentions of acting in good faith.
 
Opinion also plays a key role in all elements of tort law, because determination of neglect or responsibility, under the core standard of care on which tort law is based, is centered on finding a unity of opinion in the eyes of the law (or legal body, such as the court). 
 When applied to arguments over misrepresentation or nondisclosure, determinations over whether each occurred in a given situation, are again, formed by achieving a legal unity of opinion, which becomes more tenuous when the conflicts over whether something has been withheld or misrepresented is formed over a difference of opinion.  For example, if one advertised a baseball product that said it would help someone hit a home run, but the complainant argues that because it failed to help him hit a home run, it does not work. 
 
In both instances, intention and opinion can be very difficult to prove and establish under tort law, as their subjective nature can be difficult to quantify, causing situations where issues of plausible denial may prevent the formation of the unity of opinion that lies at the heart of nearly ever tort action.

The Best Remedies for Misrepresentation

The Best Remedies for Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation represents a unique facet under tort law, especially when under the auspices of  In tort law, misrepresentation, in most of its forms, represents a core violation to the standard of care, which is used in the determination of culpable negligence. 
Under tort law, when misrepresentation can be found to have caused the victim of it to have incurred some form of appreciable loss, then the victim has the opportunity to pursue legal remedies for their loss from the party who misrepresented the original product or service.
While tortious misrepresentation usually stops short of contracted agreements (which themselves fall under the auspices of contract law), under British Common Law, due to the UK’s Misrepresentation Act of 1967, remedies from contractual misrepresentation can be acquired under tort law. and are thus covered under tort law as opposed to contract law.  
Interestingly, a party accused of misrepresentation under common law can be accused of misrepresentation even if they entered into a contract within good faith, as the standard of the contract implies that it is the responsibility of the misrepresenting party to determine that they are able to enter into the agreement.  
In the case of an unintended misrepresentation, which entails specific negligence, it is often more common to pursue remedy under the auspices of statute law, as it shifts the burden of proof to the individual making the misrepresentation, while in tort it falls on the plaintiff to establish that misrepresentation occurred.
The primary and most desired remedies in a case of misrepresentation is typically rescission of the agreement, which, effectively, is an effort by the complainant to remove themselves from a binding agreement that was made due to the misrepresentation.  
There are instances where rescission is not possible, mainly in situations where it is impossible to restore a situation to how it was before entering a contract (which can then be used to ascertain if losses have occurred

Representation & Nondisclosure

Representation & Nondisclosure

Generally, when one enters into an agreement with a party, there are entitled to specific levels of disclosure on the part of the other party by law. This is done either at the request of the first party, under the guidelines covered by the standard of care, or else the party runs the risk of committing tortious negligence or fraud. 
If these conditions are not met, and a party has been found to be maintaining a policy of nondisclosure, this can lead to charges of misrepresentation, and they can be used as the basis of a tortious action. Usually elements categorized as representing nondisclosure include terms that would directly effect the nature of the agreement, up to and including fraud.
 
In the case of legally binding agreement of representation (ones usually not covered by a contract, like accounting services), issues of nondisclosure can also include elements that would have directly effected the terms in which representation would be enacted, such as in cases where there could be found to be a conflict of interest, or a misrepresentation of abilities or inabilities (such as particular forms of certification, for example when someone claiming to be a certified accountant actually is not). 
In many of these cases, certain non-disclosures are found to be able grounds to void an existing contract, and may entitle the wronged party to damages under tort law in the instances that losses have been incurred.
 
Often, cases of representation and nondisclosure enter into situations that specifically entail the transfer of property, products, or services, which are not covered
 
However, it remains that in many aspects in representation and nondisclosure, there is still a significant onus upon a buyer or client to request information themselves. In which case, the vendor of the product or service is required to provide full disclosure when asked, and must discuss, truthfully, elements that directly pertain to the representation of the product.
 
When willful nondisclosure occurs in the instance where a product or service is sold or transferred in the interest of exploiting the other party, it would typically represent a form of fraud, which could be susceptible to not only tortious complaint, but criminal as well.

Misrepresentation & Nondisclosure in Tort Law

Misrepresentation & Nondisclosure in Tort Law

Misrepresentation and nondisclosure form two fundamental bases for many actions represented under tort law, because any case where false or hidden information plays a significant part essentially implies a standard of care that reflects the negligence addressed by tort. To phrase it more simply, the fact that information has been withheld or misrepresented directly implies a negligent situation. 
This means that among the various subsections of tort law, cases of misrepresentation and nondisclosure can prove to be the easiest to form a legal consensus of opinion on whether negligence has happened, because the very idea of the act itself is a negligent action. Misrepresentation and nondisclosure can take many forms, but generally they refer to act or services, usually rendered for compensation that do not fulfill their terms of promise, either because they misrepresent their ability to perform, or fail to disclose elements that prevent adequate performance (like a unknown side effect for a product, or a conflict of interest in a case of service). 
There are many remedies one may seek when a case of misrepresentation can be seen to have occurred, though the extent to which they fall under tort law or other forms of legal action are highly dependent on the specific legal system, as well as the nature of the misrepresentation. In nearly all cases, there is an obligation on the provider of a product or service to provide information either by law, or by request, so as to adhere to all legal standards of accurate representation. When a provider fails to disclose all information that could directly influence a tortious (non-contract) agreement for the transaction, then the provider is said to have committed nondisclosure and can be help liable for that action.
The extent by which someone has committed (or not committed) an act of misrepresentation or nondisclosure is determined by their basis of responsibility. The basis of responsibility measures their level and need of disclosure against potential liability in determination of whether actions were legally responsible or not. (https://tort.laws.com/Misrepresentation-Nondisclosure/Responsibilities )  Also key to establishing and proving a case of misrepresentation and nondisclosure is the vital, but difficult to quantify, roles played by opinion and intention, which play a direct role in determining negligence and materiality.
 
Remedies for Misrepresentation:
 
In tort law, misrepresentation, in most of its forms, represents a core violation to the standard of care, which is used in the determination of culpable negligence. Usually misrepresentation represents a violation of an implied agreement due to one of the parties presenting a product, property, or service in manner or level of quality that is inaccurate to its real conditions or values.
 

Representation & Nondisclosure:
 
When a party has been found to be maintaining a policy of nondisclosure, this can lead to charges of misrepresentation, and they can be used as the basis of a tortious action. Usually elements categorized as representing nondisclosure include terms that can directly effect the nature of the agreement, up to and including fraud. Often, cases of representation and nondisclosure enter into situations that specifically entail the transfer of property, products, or services, which are not covered  Instances, where the product are service are not to the level of expectation due to a misleading presentation or the withholding of key information, nondisclosure can be said to have occurred…
 

Basis of Responsibility:
 
The basis of responsibility in cases of misrepresentation and nondisclosure is based on a comprehensive nexus between disclosure and liability, both of which combine to determine the extent one party has over the services or product they represent in a tort law situation. What the basis of responsibility seeks to ascertain is the level to which an individual can be held accountable in a given a situation, the restitution that must be made if they are found to have committed an act of misrepresentation or nondisclosure, or the level to which their responsibility can be mitigated, up to and including exoneration. Generally, as a rule, the greater one’s level of disclosure, the more diminished one’s level of responsibilities and liabilities are in most transaction of goods or services…
 

Justifiable Reliance- Materiality:
 
Justifiable reliance represents the core to any charge of misrepresentation and nondisclosure, as it represents the specific standard to which a representative relationship can be ascertained to the point of legal responsibility. Justifiable reliance, simply put, indicates the extent to which one can be held to have relied on the representations of another. In claims made under tort law, it refers to the extent than one can hold another party liable for their misrepresentations. For justifiable reliance to pertain directly to liability, it must be said to have an acceptable level what is called “materiality”. Materiality constitutes the element of a product that establishes its marketability; usually as the service that a product can provide. Since the offer of service establishes a standard of service, this immediately determines how much one can rely on a product to what its advertised…
 
Opinion and Intention:
 
Where the conditions that are used to determine situations of misrepresentation and nondisclosure can become somewhat murky lie in the roles that are played by the somewhat abstract roles opinion and intention play in tort law and product representation. While both seem very basic, their significance in tort law is vital, especially since they can mitigate circumstances where responsibility, liability, materiality, and information need to be quantified and specified as much as possible when making a determination of fault. In both instances, intention and opinion can be very difficult to prove and establish under tort law, as their subjective nature can be difficult to quantify, causing situations where issues of plausible denial can prevent the formation of the unity of opinion that lies at the heart of nearly ever tort action.
 
Damages:
 
When suits or legal conflicts over issues of misrepresentation and nondisclosure occur that fall under the auspices of tort law, the forms of compensation and damages to which complainants and plaintiffs are entitled are actually intended to be fairly strict. However, depending on the extent of the damages extended in one of these particular cases, that amount of compensation a plaintiff is entitled can be considerable. Tort cases are centrally designed toward finding a legal basis of responsibility and consensus of opinion upon which determinations of negligence and responsibility are then based. Whether the ultimate determination is made through a legal settlement, jury award, or judge’s decision, it is based on determining negligence or responsibility based on the burden of proof. From there, if the case goes the way of the plaintiff, a determination will be made over the extent of damages to be rewarded based on the plaintiff’s losses…