Fraudulent misrepresentation is referenced only to misrepresentation that is knowingly not true and is meant to misguide the other person. Typically, fraud contains three aspects; a misrepresentation of a factual occurrence of material, next intent of deception must be present, and the non-guilty person has to defensible depended upon the misrepresentation. Some type of harm must have been brought as a result of the misrepresentation in order to obtain any damages. It is also possible for fraudulent misrepresentation to come about from the online environment.
Undue Influence and Duress Undue influence come about when affiliates a person can eminently influence another person that intimidates that partys freedom. When a contract initiated under extreme pressure or undue influence inadequacy agreement can be voided. Undue influence crucial attributes is that the party being misrepresented isnt liable, bottom line, didnt go into a contract on their own free will. Just declaring that a person is too old to understand or that they have mental ailments or impaired physically is not suffice.
It has to be undeniable and convincing attestation that they didnt act on their own accord willingly. Making someone go into an agreement or contract under circumstance of fear which is brought about by foreboding is considered as duress. Also, extortion to induce consent to a contract or blackmail constitutes duress. Under general circumstances, for duress to come about, the foreboding act has to be illegal or wrongful. Scaring someone into using a legal right, such as the right to sue someone, normally is not illegal and doesnt make it duress.
Both a ground for rescission of a contract and a defense to the enforcement of a contract are considered duress. Therefore, a person who signs a contract under duress can decide to go along with the contract or to terminate the whole transaction. (The wronged party usually has this choice in cases in which approval is not willingly. ) Economic need generally is not adequate to create duress, even when one party exacts a very high price for an item the other party needs.
If the party exacting the price also creates the need, however, economic duress may be found (Miller 286-287). Examples of undue influence and duress can been seen in many different affiliation to where one may have a more commanding influence over another party, therefore immorally influencing him or her. The dependencies of older and young people, for example, are often under the guidance of their Caregiver. If that trusted person cons them to agree to sign a contract which will selfishly gain the guardian, the guardian may have employed undue influence.
Undue influence can come to play from many confidential or fiduciary affiliation, not limiting guardian-ward, physician-patient, husband-wife, attorney-client, parent-child, and trustee-beneficiary (Miller 286). Damages and Equitable Remedies There are essentially four extensive types of damages; compensatory damages which are designed to cover direct losses and costs, consequential damages which cover indirect and foreseeable losses, punitive damages are supposed to punish and deter wrongdoing, and nominal damages which recognize wrongdoing when no monetary loss is shown (Miller 323).
In reading our textbook it explains how there are times when damages are an inadequate remedy for a breach of contract. In these situations, the non-breaching party may ask the court for an equitable remedy. Rescission and restitution, specific performance, and reformation are Equitable remedies include. Restitution is an equitable remedy under which a person is return back to their formal position as before the loss or injury, or put back in the position they would have been as if the breach never happened.
When requiring exactly the performance that was specified in a contract; usually granted only when monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy and the subject matter of the contract is unique (for example, real property) this is Specific Performance is an equitable remedy. Reformation becomes equitable remedy when each party has given their side of the story/agreement to the best of their ability in writing. Reformation allows a court to rewrite the contract to reflect the parties true intentions. When fraud or mutual mistake is present the courts order reformation the most. ?