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