Reforming damages for misrepresentation:the case for coherent aims and principles

Examines the basis on which damages for misrepresentation are awarded, suggesting that the underlying principles lack coherence, and calls for clarification of the law. Argues that there are valid policy considerations justifying a distinction between the basis of the award of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Explains why identification of the three stages in the process of awarding damages for misrepresentation are crucial to the application of the underlying legal principles of causation and remoteness at the right stage of the process. Reviews case law on lost opportunity damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, the application of loss of chance principles, and recovery of post-contract losses.