We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close


Deceit - The Lie of the Law

7 INDUCEMENT INDUCEMENT AND THE RESULTANT DAMAGE: TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION 7.1 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.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?


Request a trial Find out more