Close this search box.



The significance of the phrase ‘misrepresentation’ can be inferred from the point that “totally free consent” which is unavoidable for an arrangement to be enforceable below Segment 14 of Indian Deal Act, 1872 is rendered unfavorable if misrepresentation is proved. In other phrases, misrepresentation to any get together in a contract so as to induce them for consent renders the deal void.

Area 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the “Agreement Act”) defines misrepresentation. This part is quoted beneath:

“Misrepresentation” signifies and involves –

(1)the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the details of the human being building it, of that which is not real, while he believes it to be legitimate

(2)any breach of obligation which, with no an intent to deceive, gains an edge to the particular person committing it, or any one professing beneath him, by misleading an additional to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any a single professing underneath him

(3)producing, however innocently, a get together to an agreement, to make a blunder as to the material of the thing which is the subject of the arrangement.”

With regard to contract, the basic principal is that if one particular bash has induced the other to enter into a contract by misrepresentation, although innocently of any material fact specially within his have know-how, the party misled can keep away from the contract. The get together who was induced by misrepresentation to enter into a agreement, has two solutions open up to him (i) to elect to rescind the contract, or (ii) to find enforcement of representation and insist on staying placed in the exact same posture as if the contract was performed by proclaiming damages.”

Underneath Part 19 of the Contract Act, the ideal of rescission is accessible exactly where consent is brought on by misrepresentation.

Portion 19 of the Contract Act supplies for voidability of agreements devoid of cost-free consent. This area is quoted down below:

“When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the settlement is a deal voidable at the possibility of the social gathering whose consent was so brought about.

A social gathering to a deal, whose consent was induced by fraud or misrepresentation, may perhaps, if he thinks match, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be place in the place in which he would have been if the representations built experienced been genuine.

Exception: If these types of consent was prompted by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within just the that means of segment 17, the deal, nonetheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so induced experienced the indicates of identifying the truth of the matter with regular diligence.

Clarification: A fraud or misrepresentation which did not lead to the consent to a deal of the celebration on whom these types of fraud was practiced, or to whom these types of misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.”


A, by a misrepresentation, leads B erroneously to believe that five hundred mounds of indigo are built per year at A’s factory. B examines the accounts of the manufacturing facility, which display that only four hundred mounds of indigo have been made. Immediately after this B buys the manufacturing unit. The deal is not voidable on account of A’s misrepresentation since of absence of ‘due diligence’.

Portion 19A of Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that:-

“When consent to an settlement is caused by undue impact, the agreement is a deal voidable at the selection of the party whose consent was so brought on. Any this kind of agreement may be established apart certainly or, if the social gathering who was entitled to avoid it has gained any reward thereunder, upon this kind of terms and circumstances as to the Courtroom may appear to be just”.

A Comparative Analyze of Correlation Among Misrepresentation and Sale Of Goods

Part 3 of the Sale of Goods Act states that:

“The unrepealed provisions of the Contract Act preserve in so significantly as they are inconsistent with the categorical provisions of the Sale of Items Act, shall keep on to apply to contracts for the sale of products”.

Portion 12 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 gives the variation concerning ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’ and read as follows:-

“12.Problem and warranty, – (1) A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof could be a ailment or a guarantee.

(2)A affliction is a stipulation necessary to the primary intent of the deal, the breach of which provides increase to a proper to treat the deal as repudiated.

(3)A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the key function of the contract, the breach of which gives increase to a assert for damages but not to a suitable to reject the goods and address the contract as repudiated.

(4)Irrespective of whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a situation or a guarantee depends in each individual scenario on the development of the contract. A stipulation may possibly be a situation, however called a guarantee in the agreement”.

Additional, Section 13 of the Sale of Products Act, 1930 presents when ‘condition’ to be dealt with as `warranty’, appropriate part of sub-part (1) & (2) thereof reads as underneath:-

“13.When affliction to be handled as warranty. – (1) Where a contract of sale is subject matter to any ailment to be fulfilled by the seller, the customer may waive the ailment or elect to handle the breach of the condition as a breach of warranty and not as a floor for managing the agreement as repudiated.

(2)In which a agreement of sale is not severable and the customer has accepted the items or part thereof, the breach of any situation to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of guarantee and not as a floor for rejecting the goods and treating the deal rejecting the merchandise and dealing with the agreement as repudiated, until there is a phrase of the agreement, convey or implied, to that result.”

Difference Involving Misrepresentation and Fraud: Clearing the Imbroglio

Definition of Fraud as for each Indian Agreement Act, 1872:

Segment 17:- “Fraud” indicates and incorporates any of the pursuing acts dedicated by a celebration to a agreement, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive a further bash thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

(1) the suggestion, as a simple fact, of that which is not true by a single who does not feel it to be legitimate
(2) the lively concealment of a truth by one particular possessing information or perception of the fact
(3) a promise created with out any intention of undertaking it
(4) any other act equipped to deceive
(5) any this sort of act or omission as the legislation specially declares to be fraudulent.

Explanation: Mere silence as to specifics probable to have an impact on the willingness of a particular person to enter into a deal is not fraud, except if the situation of the circumstance are these types of that, regard getting experienced to them, it is the obligation of the human being trying to keep silence to converse, or unless of course his silence is, in by itself, equal to speech.


(a)A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A claims nothing to B about the horse’s unsoundness. This is not fraud in A.


As we can infer from the Indian Agreement Act, misrepresentation is an innocent act of deceit whilst fraud inevitably involves the intention to deceive. As the deception is deliberate, the contract will become void immediately after fraud is proved whereas in situation of misrepresentation the deal is voidable at the possibility of the social gathering deceived. On the other hand, both of those are sorts of undue influence as per Part 16 of Indian Deal Act.

Bellachi (Lifeless) by LR Vs. Pakeeran JT 2009(4) SC 298

Subject matter of the accommodate was a deed of sale dated 7th October, 1999 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The amount of thought was demonstrated therein to be a sum of Rs. 20,000/.Contention of the appellant in the explained go well with was that the reported deed of sale is vitiated by misrepresentation, undue affect, fraud and collusion as she was designed to imagine that she would receive fiscal support by executing the mentioned document. According to her, she had reposed total faith and belief in her brother who used to stop by her position frequently. The law does not envisage increasing of a presumption in favour of undue influence. A bash alleging the same must confirm the similar topic of training course to just exceptions. Therefore, the plaint was dismissed.

Point out of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. All India Manufaturers Corporation and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1846

State of Karnataka decided to just take up “Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Job” with a consortium. For the quite very same, Memorandum of being familiar with (MOU) was entered into involving the petitioner and a consortium of companies.Governing administration purchase (GO) was also passed. Associates of consortium entered into an arrangement for assigning their respective rights beneath the GO and MOU in favour of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. Nandi submitted a framework agreement (FWA) which was authorized by the petitioner.1 of the essential obligations of petitioner beneath FWA was to make land readily available.Karnataka Industrial Parts Progress Board entered into an settlement with Nandi for acquisition of non-public land. Henceforth, notifications ended up issued.FWA was challenged in community fascination writ petition. The petitioner took the plea that they had specified their consent thanks to misrepresentation by Nandi. The inference drawn by the High Court was that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation sought to be raised was not only an afterthought but also bogus to the knowledge of the State Federal government. The Significant Court, as a result, observed (vide Paragraph 27): “It is unlucky that the petitioners and the State Federal government have picked out to raise this bogie (sic- bogey) to defeat the general public task subserving community fascination. On attractiveness, Supreme Court docket upheld the see of Significant Court docket with regards to the plea of misrepresentation.

Union of India and Ors. Vs. R.P. Yadav AIR 2000 SC 2252

A contract had been entered amongst Indian navy and artificial apprentice. The concern dealt with was no matter whether artificer apprentice of Indian Navy who experienced been supplied re-engagement for selected interval following acquiring his consent for it entitled to withdraw consent and need his launch from pressure as of suitable. It is the case of respondant in his writ petition that he agreed to be reengaged was dependent on the misrepresentation on the portion of the appellants to him that he had only done 11 several years of pensionable services and that he essential yet another 4 several years to earn the pension. As this kind of, it was contended he experienced a suitable to rescind the agreement beneath Area 19 of the Deal Act. The appellants by sending Raj Kumar the “Expiry of Engagement Serial” expressly represented to him that he had put in only 11 yrs of pensionable support and that he must use for extension for 4 years to qualify for pension. Consequently, the court docket held that the consent of synthetic apprentice was attained through misrepresentation.

Sri Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhminder Singh AIR 1998 SC 1400

Get-togethers entered into a deal for sale of particular land and certain amount was compensated to petitioner as earnest dollars. Go well with for specific effectiveness submitted when petitioner did not execute sale deed and decreed by Trial Court docket. In appeal Supplemental District Decide observed that both get-togethers suffered from slip-up of truth as to region of land and sale. Thought was now compensated by the respondent. Decree for particular functionality was not passed but decree for refund of earnest revenue was handed which was verified by Higher Court docket and Supreme Courtroom. The Supreme Court upheld that the respondent was subjected to misrepresentation by the petitioner as the latter built a bogus promise to market the disputed assets.

M/s. Arosan Enetrprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3804

The factual rating depicts that on 24th October, 1989, the appellant furnished a functionality lender assurance for $ 29,28,000 and on lender assure currently being furnished, the Authorities of India assigned the contract to the Food items Corporation of India (FCI) below Clause 20 of the Settlement. FCI also in its convert opened a Letter of Credit history for the entire value of the deal while, however, as the records depict that although on 26th October, 1989, the Letter of Credit was opened by FCI but its authentication was not effected inside of the shipping and delivery date i.e. 31st October, 1989. Stage to be noted is that the Financial institution, can not, by just stating that there was non-source of goods by the appellant, use the words “fraud or misrepresentation” for applications of coming below the exception. The dispute as to non-provide of items was a make a difference in between the seller and purchaser and did not, as mentioned in the earlier mentioned decision, offer any bring about of motion for the Financial institution versus the vendor.