... 14th July, as the ship needed to depart on that day if not sooner. The case of Edginginton v Fitzmaurice2 it determines they is a misrepresentation even if it not the only statement that induced the plaintiff to enter the contract. The court held the statement was a misrepresentation as the defendants did not intend to keep to the statements at the time of entering the contract, thought it may be seen that Sea-Fix-It did definitely intend to complete the work to the ship. If this is the case then this is not a misrepresentation3. If Waymaker was induced to enter into a contract for a guarantee by the undue influence of Sea-Fix-It, they may have an action of undue influence and can make the contract voidable. Undue influence is where a sort of pressure is placed upon the victim. The case of BCCI v Aboody4 separated undue influence into classifications. ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now