''Edgington v Fitzmaurice'' (1885) 29 Ch D 459 is an

English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...

case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence.

Facts

Company directors sent shareholders a prospectus inviting subscriptions for debenture bonds. It said money would go to alter their buildings, buy horses, vans and expand into supplying fish. Really though, the purpose was to pay off liabilities, because the company was in trouble. Mistakenly believing he would get a first charge on company property, Mr Edgington bought bonds. If he was aware that he wouldn't get a charge, he wouldn't have done so. Mr Edgington sought to recover money for deceit.

Judgment

The

Court of Appeal A court of appeals, also called a court of appeal, appellate court, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of t ...

upheld Denman J at first instance, saying that the directors were liable for deceit.

Cotton LJ Sir Henry Cotton (20 May 1821 – 22 February 1892) was a British judge. He was a Lord Justice of Appeal from 1877, when he was made a Privy Counsellor, until his retirement in 1890. Early life He was born in Leytonstone. His father Willi ...

held that the statement of purpose was a fraudulent misrepresentation and Mr Edgington had relied on that despite his admission of mistake over charges. He said,(1885) 29 Ch D 459, 481 To fulfil the requirement that Mr Edgington relied on the statement, it is not necessary to show the misstatement was the sole cause of acting, so long as there was an influence. Bowen LJ said ‘the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion... A misrepresentation as to the state of a man’s mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact... such misstatement was material if it was actively present to his mind when he decided to advance his money.’ Fry LJ said the ‘inquiry is whether this statement materially affected the conduct of the Plaintiff in advancing his money.’ He pointed out the ‘prospectus was intended to influence the mind of the reader.’

Notes

{{reflist, 2 United Kingdom company case law English misrepresentation case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1885 in case law 1885 in British law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes