Problem question:

This particular question deals with misrepresentation which can defined as an unambiguous false statement of fact which
addressed to the party misled, material and induces the other party to enter into the contract. It also refers to false
statements or promises made by a seller regarding the quality or nature of a product under certain circumstances. A finding of
misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong and this means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a
pecuniary loss.

The issues arise here are: Is Collin false statement of existing fact about Lionel’s balance problem would be considered as
misrepresentation. Whether Colin's failure to disclose Pepe's car accident and leg injuries constitutes a misrepresentation, and
whether Romeo has any remedies for this misrepresentation. Whether Colin's description of Mario as 'utterly dependable' was
a misrepresentation, and whether Romeo has any remedies for this misrepresentation. To find someone liabile under the
misrepresentation, one should have to prove these requirements; statement of existing fact, it must be addressed to the party
misled and statement must have induced the other party form a contract.

In resolving the first issue, there was no question as statement was false or not, the representation which was made by the
Collin was not “substantially correct” as per Avon Insurance v Swire Fraster. Here one might also argues that in this contract
Romeo is buying players for future performances so the promise of future performance is not a statement of fact (Bisset v
Wilkinson). As this statement of Collin impressed Romeo so much that he offered Collin to enter into the Contract so here the
second requirement is also fulfilled as in the case of Smith v Chadwick. To assess whether the statement of Collin originally
induces Romeo to form the contract, the court might apply here the objective test that a reasonable person would not
considered a relevant factor in entering the contract, in such cases defendant has the burden of proving that this
representation was material to this contract (Museprime v Adhill Properties) As the Collin said all this to the Romeo which is
the part misled so the third requirement also fulfilled so the Collin might be liable under the fraudulent misrepresentation.

In my analysis Collin’s statement was not a statement of fact rather it is the statement of opinion which he might have made
negligent or as some of the marketing stunts, further Romeo has discovered about the Lionel’s health condition in the medical
questionnaire so the Romeo may have the weaker case for fraudulent misrepresentation as compared to negligent
misrepresentation. Romeo may have a remedy of rescission, allowing him to cancel the contract and return Lionel to Colin in
exchange for the purchase price. The fact that Romeo didn't read the medical questionnaire may not necessarily absolve Colin
of liability, as it is generally the duty of the representor (Colin) to ensure that the representee (Romeo) is aware of all material
information.

Resolving the second issue, as from the fact it is clear the statement which was made by the Collin was true at the time when
it was made rather after the accident he was aware of the situation of the Pepe, despite knowing this he hasn’t told this to
Romeo so this statement is considered as false here because Collin hasn’t tell this to Romeo at the time he made an offer to
buy Pepe. As this statement of Collin has induced the romeo into the contract. Here the case law of With v O Flanagan which
states that the party must disclose material fact if they are aware of them. In my analysis here the Collin might be liable for
fraudulent misrepresentation as he knows the news about the accident of pepe and when Romeo offers to buy Pepe then
Collin he immediately accept his offer. Here one might also argues that as the news about the accident is on air so he has
assumed Romeo wants to buy Pepe even his leg was broken. However, here the frustration would also applies here as
unforeseen events was happened here. Romeo may have a remedy of rescission in relation to the purchase of Pepe, as the
contract was formed based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

Regarding the third issue, misrepresentation could also occur through the false statement about any person’s qualities and
character, as fail to disclose Mario’s drinking problem is directly related to the contract and this definitely effect on his
performance in the game so Collin’s opinion regarding Mario’s drinking problem might constitutes as the statement of fact in
this situation under Dimmock v Hallet. As the Collin wasn’t disclose the drinking habit of the Mario’s rather he stated some
false statement regarding his health which induces the romeo in the contract so the case law applied here is With v O
Flanagan which states that the party must disclose material fact if they are aware of them. As all the three requirements of the
misrepresentation is proved so that Collin might be liable under the negligent misrepresentation which is based under tort of
deceit and under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, in order to prove the claim under negligent misrepresentation there must
exist some sort of relationship among the parties so that there would be reasonable duty of care (Hedley Byrne v Heller), the
significance of the negligent claim the aggrieved party has the burden of first proving duty of care which has been breached as
under the case of Henderson v Merrett. Romeo may have a remedy of rescission in relation to the purchase of Mario if it can
be established that Colin's statement about Mario's dependability was false and induced Romeo to enter into the contract.

In conclusion, Colin's statements regarding Lionel's condition, Pepe's accident, and Mario's dependability all raise potential
issues of misrepresentation. Lionel's undisclosed balance problem could constitute fraudulent misrepresentation, while Pepe's
undisclosed injuries may amount to negligent misrepresentation. Additionally, Mario's undisclosed drinking problem presents
another instance of potential misrepresentation. The legal principles of misrepresentation, including Avon Insurance v Swire
Fraster, Bisset v Wilkinson, and With v O Flanagan, are relevant in evaluating these cases. Remedies such as rescission may be
available to Romeo in each situation, contingent on establishing the requisite elements of misrepresentation. Overall, Colin's
omissions and statements may give rise to legal liabilities under the tort of misrepresentation, with potential implications for
the contracts in question.