The associate asks a research question on the matter
Associate
lgl.research on M-2099-001 · purpose research · tier 2
question: "What is the test for inducement in misrepresentation?"
OutcomeCompletedthread thr-83a2ed3127344b69b41c
- Search matterSearchPassed✓ PII rescanaf36889f4d…Query: “What is the test for inducement in misrepresentation?” · scope case · 1 passages
- (AEIC of Bram Harlow, para 1)AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF Originating Claim No 900 of 2099 I, Bram Harlow (NRIC No. ⟦SG_NRIC_FIN:b711380c2f0ef7a5⟧), of 12 Synthetic Road, Singapore, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am the procurement manager of the claimant, Orchid Lane Holdings Pte Ltd. 2. On 3 March 2099 the defendant's sales director told me in writing that the defendant held stock for twelve months of deliveries. I relied on that statement when I recommended that the claimant sign the supply contract. 3. If the statement had not been made, I would have recommended a second supplier. My mobile number is ⟦PHONE_SG:b
- Search authoritiesSearchPassed✓ PII rescanbfe24498cb…Query: “What is the test for inducement in misrepresentation?” · scope public · 3 passages
- [2099] SGCA 7 at [1]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2099] SGCA 7 Civil Appeal No 70 of 2099 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Coram: Chief Justice Moren Hale, Justice Sefa Quill, Justice Ada Rook (synthetic) [1] The appeal raises the test for inducement in misrepresentation. [2] A representee need not show that the misrepresentation was the sole inducement. It is enough that the misrepresentation played a real and substantial part in inducing the representee to enter into the contract. [3] Where a representation is material, an inference of inducement may be drawn, but the inference can be rebutted by ev
- [2099] SGHC 101 at [1]IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2099] SGHC 101 Originating Claim No 900 of 2099 Between Orchid Lane Holdings Pte Ltd (Claimant) And Kestrel Marine Supplies Pte Ltd (Defendant) GROUNDS OF DECISION Coram: Justice Ilsa Varden (synthetic) [1] This claim concerns a supply contract for marine fittings and the claimant's case that it was induced to contract by a misrepresentation about delivery capacity. [2] The claimant must prove a false representation of fact, made to induce the contract, which did in fact induce it. Following [2099] SGCA 7, inducement need
- [2099] SGHC 101 at [4][4] I find the misrepresentation was negligent rather than fraudulent. Damages are assessed under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act on the tortious measure. [5] The claim succeeds. Costs follow the event.
- Draft answerModel draftPassed✓ PII rescan✓ Citation verifier756510afba…
- Drafted by the extractive fallback (quotes sources) because no approved model was configured
- Observed under R-OBS-01
Research answer: - [1] The appeal raises the test for inducement in misrepresentation. [2099] SGCA 7 at [1] - [2] A representee need not show that the misrepresentation was the sole inducement. [2099] SGCA 7 at [1] - [1] This claim concerns a supply contract for marine fittings and the claimant's case that it was induced to contract by a misrepresentation about delivery capacity. [2099] SGHC 101 at [1] - Following [2099] SGCA 7, inducement need not be the sole cause, but it must have played a real and substantial part in the decision to contract. [2099] SGHC 101 at [1] - [4] I find the misrepresentation was negligent rather than fraudulent. [2099] SGHC 101 at [4] - Damages are assessed under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act on the tortious measure. [2099] SGHC 101 at [4] - I am the procurement manager of the claimant, Orchid Lane Holdings Pte Ltd. (AEIC of Bram Harlow, para 1) - On 3 March 2099 the defendant's sales director told me in writing that the defendant held stock for twelve months of deliveries. (AEIC of Bram Harlow, para 1) Drafted only from the passages above; a person must check it before use.
Ledger entries for this thread (8)
| # | Entry | Outcome | Rules | Basis | Actor | Hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | SAFR disposition | Allowed | Within mandate, below all thresholds | lgl-research-agent | 93c18288d7… | |
| 41 | Documents read | Read | search (case) | assoc | f6fcda5349… | |
| 42 | Result Gate | Passed | Result Gate: search | lgl-research-agent | 7961ac2f41… | |
| 43 | SAFR disposition | Allowed | Within mandate, below all thresholds | lgl-research-agent | fff2237633… | |
| 44 | Documents read | Read | search (public) | assoc | de5c681fcb… | |
| 45 | Result Gate | Passed | Result Gate: search | lgl-research-agent | cbc6d7995f… | |
| 46 | SAFR disposition | Allowed, observed | R-OBS-01 | R-OBS-01: model.draft_answer is flagged for monitoring | lgl-research-agent | f68d2f397e… |
| 47 | Result Gate | Passed | Result Gate: model | lgl-research-agent | 999617956a… |