The decisive question in this case is: did the party whose actual intention did not conform to the common intention expressed, lead the other party, as a reasonable man, to believe that his declared intention represented his actual intention?
To answer this question, a three-fold enquiry is usually necessary, namely, first, was there a misrepresentation as to one party's intention; secondly, who made that representation, and thirdly, was the other party misled thereby? The last question postulates two possibilities: was he actually misled and would a reasonable man have been misled?
In the present case the appellant represented to the respondent that its intention was to reduce the period of the lease. One has then to determine whether the misrepresentation had any effect, i e whether the respondent was misled thereby. If he realised (or should have realised as a reasonable man) that there was a real possibility of a mistake in the offer, he would have had a duty to speak and to enquire whether the expressed offer was the intended offer. Only thereafter could he accept. The snapping up of a bargain in the knowledge of such a possibility of a mistake in the offer would not be bona fide.
Whether there is a duty to speak will obviously depend on the facts of each case.
Source: SAFLII
No comments:
Post a Comment