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.

Justifying partial rescission in English law

Comments on the refusal of the English courts to recognise the existence of a remedy of partial rescission, suggesting that in certain restricted instances justification exists for the grant of such a remedy. Considers the nature of the remedy of rescission under English law, the English courts' approach towards partial rescission and the nature and scope of the discretions available to the courts, noting the decisions in TSB Bank Plc v Camfield and De Molestina v Ponton. Reviews the historical origins of the remedy of rescission, including the distinction between fraudulent and non fraudulent misrepresentation and the origins of the so called concurrent and auxiliary equitable jurisdictions. Compares the approach of the Australian courts and highlights examples of recognition of partial rescission under international law.