Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Reliance revisited: is “conscious awareness” a requirement of reliance/inducement in all misrepresentation cases, or a bridge too far?
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
This article considers the case law in this area and suggests that the approach in Crossley is to be preferred. The rebuttal to Crossley in Loreley comes close to the right answer, in seeking a satisfactory causative bridge in all cases, but wrongly seeks to retain “conscious awareness” as a requirement in all cases and eschew the notion that this is always distinct from assumption. An analysis of the motivator for that conclusion, the need for a sufficient causative bridge, shows the causative bridge can be satisfied without that requirement in some cases of implied representation, and causes unnecessary difficulty with other juridical concepts.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
