The basic difference between misrepresentation and fraud is
that in fraud the person making the representation does not himself believe in
the truth of the statement he is making whereas in situations of innocent
misrepresentation the person making the statement may believe that what he is
saying is true. This is due to the fact that the person making the statement is
simply repeating what another person has asserted to be true. In cases of
fraud, the person making the statement is a complete liar and is making the
statement to deceive others to enter into a contract. However this is just the
general rule.
Difference
between fraud and misinterpretation :-
In misrepresentation the person making the false statement
believes it to be true. In fraud the false statement is person who knows that
it is false or he does not care to know whether it is true or false.
There is no intention to deceive the other party when there
is misrepresentation of fact. The very purpose of the fraud is to deceive the
other party to the contract.
Misrepresentation renders the contract voidable at the
option of the party whose consent was obtained by misrepresentation. In the
case of fraud the contract is voidable It also gives rise to an independent
action in tort for damages.
Misrepresentation is not an offence under Indian penal code
and hence not punishable. Fraud, In certain cases is a punishable offence under
Indian penal code.
Generally, silence is not fraud except where there is a duty
to speak or the relations between parties is fiduciary. Under no circumstances
can silence be considered as misrepresentation.
The party complaining of misrepresentation can’t avoid the
contract if he had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence. But
in the case of fraud, the party making a false statement cannot say that the
other party had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence.
hello,and thanks for your update, but in cases of fraud defence could be available if the plaintiff resorted on the means available to find out the truth and inspite of resorting, truth could not be discovered which is not of such hidden nature .
ReplyDeletebut if means are available but plaintiff don't do any thing to find out the truth then no defence will be available with defendant.
the former one is an exception for this rule.
and my above reply is based on my research ,which according to me is right.
Deleteif any rebuttal point for this then reply.
This short only at the article posted web site is truly good.
ReplyDeletebusiness