Deceit - The Lie of the Law
INDUCEMENT AND THE RESULTANT DAMAGE: TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION
In 1941, in Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v. Borders,1 Viscount Maugham held that the claimant “must have acted upon the false statement and has sustained damage by so doing”. This simple statement, simply understood, belies deeper issues requiring disentanglement. The knot of confusion might grow tighter when the ingredients of the tort are repeated by the courts in slightly different terms: for example, that the representee “relied upon”,2 was “influenced by”,3 “acted upon”,4 or “acted in reliance on”,5 the misrepresentation, and yet Hobhouse, LJ in Downs v. Chappell,6 stated that reliance is not the “correct criterion”, although it has a similar meaning to inducement.