MODULE: BUSINESS LAW
LECTURER: MR MAHADEVAN LUKSHUMAYEH
Question: In early 2013, Beauty property developer negotiated with Stylish over a new house in the eastern sector of Singapore. Beauty and Stylish had various meetings about the cost and finish of the house. At one of their meetings, Stylish asked Beauty whether the price of the house included curtains, blinds and window coverings. Beauty explained that all window coverings were provided for in the contract.
Several weeks later Stylish agreed to purchase the proposed house and signed a written contract. The contract however contained the following clause:
Clause 3 – The contract price of the house excludes all window coverings. The provision …show more content…
But Stylish is legally allowed to cancel the contract and make it effective. Beauty will become more alert and issued a statement before the contract, including the statement of curtains, blinds and window shades in total costs, Beauty would had save both time, effort and money. However, the cancellation of the contract is not a necessary step in this case, Stylish may claim expenses from Beauty and ask to be provided as compensation for window coverings.
The circumstance of misrepresentation is where Beauty has a reasonable basis to believe the pre-contructual statement before she made the contract is true, not only when she was declared as Stylish also contracted. This is called Innocent Misrepresentation because both Beauty and Stylish are not aware of the breach of contract. In this context, Stylish can completely cancel the contract and can claim the costs from the court through Beauty. The remedies awarded to a plaintiff where the defendant violated the contract. Some remedies can be a financial compensation or an order for a number of rights owed to the plaintiff. Stylish instead of seeking financial compensation should be required to provide curtains, blinds and window coverings from Beauty as promised before signing the contract and was recorded in the pre-contractual statement. This will be fair dealing for both Beauty and Stylish in this case, because it is an Innocent Misrepresentation