Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd.†Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd. Answer: Introduction: According to Latimer (2010, p. 112) a misrepresentation is a false statement which is made by a party to a contract through which the innocent party is persuaded to get into the contract. There are three types of Misrepresentations, namely innocent, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is innocent where the party making it does not have knowledge about it. A fraudulent misrepresentation takes place when a party deliberately indulges in misrepresentation. A negligent misrepresentation is triggered when the party unknowingly makes a false presentation but if it took reasonable steps, the mistake could have been avoided. In the case of Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 it had been ruled by the court that the aggrieved party has the right to recession as well as damages for any losses incurred by him in relation to a negligent misrepresentation. Richard has entered into a contract with Emma (agent of Shocks Are Us) for purchasing shock absorbers required to restore his jeeps and enable it to operate on rough rods. He has been provided with wrong absorbers. He relied on the advice of Emma to purchase them and Emma had reasonable chance to ensure that he provides Richard with correct advice. Therefore negligent misrepresentation has been done by Emma and as per Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd Richard can opt for recession and also claim losses incurred by him. When a person paid a less payment in relation to an already existing contractual duty he cannot rely on the fact that the balance had been forgiven by the other party unless an additional consideration was provided by him and is liable to pay the full amount. These provisions have been discussed by the court in relation to addressing the issue in the case of Foakes v Beer (1883-84) L.R. 9 App. Cas. 605. On the other hand it had been ruled by the court in the case of Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd. [1972] AC 741 that a party can uses the doctrine of promissory estoppels as a defense against a claim but not as a claim itself where there has been a change in the initial contractual duty and the position of the party due to the a unambiguous and clear promise made by the other party. The scenario depicts that a clear and unambiguous agreement has been made between Richard and George for paying only the actual rent and not the increased rent. However George does not recognize the promise and claims that no contracts have been formed between them. The claim made by George is a valid claim under the provisions of contract law and the rules provided the Foakes v Beer case. However, Richard has the right to make a claim under the principles of equity to enforce the promise of George. He has a very strong claim under the rules of promissory estoppels as provided by the case of Woodhouse. This is because there has been a change in the initial contractual duty of Richard and his financial position as well (spent money for tools) due to an unambiguous and clear promise made by George. The primary case which deals with the issue is the landmark English case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. The case dealt with several issues such as an unequivocal acceptance, a counter offer and the rejection of an offer. The primary ruling of this case was that an offer is liable to be rejected (ended and not eligible for acceptance any longer) when a counter offer or an unequivocal acceptance has been made against it. Tom made offer to Richard to purchase a Mercedes which had been advertised by Richard to be sold at $20000. The offer price of Tom is only $18500 and thus Richard did not accept the offer and proposed to sell the car at $19000. This means that as the acceptances is not unequivocal it is a counter offer and evidently as per the rules provided by the Hyde v Wrench case it defeats the offer of Tom to purchase the car at $18500. Now unless Tom makes a fresh offer to purchase the car he is under no liability to purchase the car as the offer for $18500 has already been ended. There are certain situation in which a consideration cannot be considered as a valid consideration. One of such conditions is that if an activity has been done before a offer was made by the other party then the activity is not a valid consideration and is also known as past consideration. The rule was provided by Re Casey's Patent (1892) A past consideration may however be valid under certain circumstances including a situation where the act or omission was due to the request of the promisor and where it was clear that a compensation is to be provided for the activity. This rule was provided by Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 The activity of martin to care for the garage belonging to Richard did not arise out of a request which has been made by Richard to him. In addition the act was done before the promise of providing the Car for free had been made. Thus the act falls under the scope of rules relating to past consideration. In addition the exception is also not valid in the situation. Bibliography Foakes v Beer (1883-84) L.R. 9 App. Cas. 605. Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. Latimer, P (2010).Australian Business Law, 29th ed, North Ryde: CCH Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Re Casey's Patent (1892) Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd. [1972] AC 741