Law Misrepresentation Statement
For Harold and Dot to prove that they have been the victims of actionable misrepresentation, three requirements have to be satisfied. First of all, there must a false statement made by Albert; secondly, it must be an assertion of fact rather than a mere expression of opinion; thirdly, it was the representation made by Albert that induced Harold and Dot to enter into the contract. The remedies available to them depend on the type of misrepresentations that have occurred.
2. What constitute an actionable misrepresentation?
To constitute an actionable misrepresentation, one party must be induced to enter into the contract because of an untrue statement of existing or past fact which is addressed to him by the other party before or at the time of making the transaction. (1. Beatson, J. 2002, Anson`s Law of Contract, 28th edition, Oxford University Press, the United States, at 237.)
2.1 Whether there is an operative misrepresentation between Harold and Albert.
Under the present circumstances, it is clear that Harold agreed to sell the statuette to Albert for 35 pounds because of the false statement made by Albert before the time of making the deal.
The next question is whether the statement is an assertion of fact or mere a delivery of opinion which will not be sufficient enough create an operative misrepresentation. (2. Bisset v. Wilkinson,  A.C. 177,)
On the face of it, the statement made by Harold looks to be insufficient to constitute a misrepresentation because he falsely stated his opinion with regard to the value of the statuette which is worthy of 500 pounds. However, it is very likely for his statement to be regarded as an assertion of fact rather than a mere expression of opinion. In Edgington v. Fitzmaurice,(3.  29 Ch.D. 459.)
it was held that the statement made by the person who issued the prospectus to the public was a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact since he did not intend to spend the loans as suggested, and thus had misrepresented the state of his mind.
Accordingly, if the party represented the state of his mind to be something else other than the real intention, he has made a misrepresentation of fact in the eye of law because “the statement of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion.” (4. BOWEN LJ, Edgington v. Fitzmaurice,  29 Ch. D. 459, at 483.)
The burden of proving that the false statement which was made by Albert before the time of making the contract was one of the reasons that induced the transaction lies upon Harold, which is the party misled. (5. Arkwright v. Newbold  17 Ch. D. 301, at 324.)
The mere fact that Harold does not carry out his own investigation in order to reveal the untrue statement made by Albert is not sufficient enough to deprive him of his rights to bring a claim against Albert. (6. Central Ry. Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch  L.R. 2 H.L. 99, at 120.) It was held in Redgrave v. Hurd that (7. (1881) 20 Ch. D.1.) the buyer was entitled to rely on the seller’s judgement even if he had the opportunities of discovering the truth.
As was discussed above, it is very likely that there is an actionable misrepresentation between Harold and Albert and therefore the transaction between Harold and Albert will be voidable at the suit of Harold.
2.2 Whether there is an operative misrepresentation between Dot and Albert.
Given that Dot bought the statuette which claimed to be a genuine Fugere for 9000 pounds in Albert’s branch and it turned out to be just a piece made by a student from the well known artist’s studio, it is clear that Albert made a false statement concerning the maker and the value of the statuette.
As was stated above, mere expression of opinion can not constitute a representation of fact. It is held that where the facts are equally well known to both parties, the statement made by one of them and addressed to