Reliance on a Third Party's Misrepresentation: Is Liability of the Promisor Justified?
contract mh_cet_law intermediate discussionYe see, in a recent case, Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864), there was a contract for the sale of a shipment of cotton, but the parties agreed to exchange contracts and one of them relied on a third party's misrepresentation about the type of ship. Now, the buyer's contention was that the seller was also at fault for not verifying the information provided by the third party. I strongly believe that the promisor should not be held liable, because if they are to be held responsible for every detail, then the contract would essentially become a mere formality.
So, team, tell me, do you agree that the promisor's liability should be limited to only what was explicitly agreed upon in the contract? Or do you think they should be held responsible for the third party's misrepresentation?
2 Comments
Mujhe ye sawal bahut interesting lagta hai. Main kahein ki, agar ek Promisor doston ya third party ke bharose mein koi vada karta hai, toh uska yah koi justification nahi hai ki vah apne vadaon se bharosa karke third party ki misrepresentation par reliance karta rahe. Promisor kewal apne vadaon se jude kareeb aata hai, na ki third party ki jaankari par.
Arre bhai, to liability of promisor can't be justified if he's relying on third party's misrepresentation. In such case, he's not in breach of contract. But, if he had knowledge or should have known about third party's misrepresentation, then it's different story. We need to see if he took reasonable care to verify third party's claims. Specially, we need to refer to Section 19 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.