English Contract Law – Conduct and Failure to disclose necessary information in misrepresentation
Words spoken to the representee are covered under the obligation for a statement. However, a person's actions or behavior or a statement they make that omits crucial information can also constitute misrepresentation.

Conduct
Conduct that creates a false impression might be a statement.

Failure to disclose all necessary information
Under English law, there isn't typically a disclosure requirement. This indicates that neither party is obligated to reveal to the other all material information that he is aware of when two parties are preparing to enter into a contract. But keep in mind that there are several exceptions to this rule, such as: a change in circumstances and incomplete information. Not quite accurate A statement can be misrepresented if it leaves out important information and is therefore deceptive. In spite of the fact that such comments could appear to be correct at the moment they are uttered, they send the representee the wrong impression because they exclude key information. Consider a customer who asks a lawyer to represent him in the purchase of a land parcel. The lawyer, who hasn't studied the legal documents, says he isn't aware of any limits when the client asks him to confirm whether there are any on the land plot. The solicitor made a false assertion in his statement. The solicitor's claim that he is unaware of any limits is technically accurate, but his assertion is false. This is due to the fact that he omitted the crucial detail that he is unaware of any restrictions because he hasn't studied the pertinent paperwork.

​English Contract Law – False Statement 

We need to prove that the alleged statement was untrue or erroneous when it was made.

False because of a change in the facts 
Be wary of claims that are true when they are made but later prove to be untrue or erroneous before the contract is signed. For instance, a seller might inform a potential customer that his company makes £1 000,000 per year in profit, but by the time the customer decides to purchase the company, the annual profit might have changed. The representor is seen to have a duty to update the representation in such cases up until the sale is finalized, according to the courts. This statement may be deemed to be false if the person fails to rectify it before the transaction.

​English Contract Law – Unambiguous in misrepresentation 
The need that a statement be unambiguous is the first stage in determining whether it may be considered a misrepresentation. The objective evaluation considers how a reasonable person would view the statement. If a remark is ambiguous or imprecise, it should be interpreted in accordance with the meaning that the representor  intended or that the representor knew the listener would comprehend. Accordingly, a representee cannot assert that a factual statement constitutes a misrepresentation only because he has given it an inappropriate interpretation.

​English Contract Law – Outline key Features of Misrepresentation 
Unambiguous statements ( words or conducts) of facts or law that induced representee to enter into the contract.
Was it material ?
Was it known to the representee
Did the representor intent the statement to be acted upon?
Was it acted upon? 
Conclude whether there is misrepresentation or not 

​English Contract Law  – An overview of Misrepresentation 
Prior to a contract being made, parties commonly exchange statements. Some of these claims fall under the category of representations. Misrepresentations are a category for some representations.
A clear-cut, erroneous factual or legal assertion made to the representee that persuades them to sign the contract is considered a misrepresentation. Business to business (B2B) and business to consumer (B2C) contexts have different contracting regimes. Service agreements between businesses and consumers are covered by Section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Anything a trader says or writes to a customer about the trader or the service is treated as a term of the contract if the consumer considers it while deciding whether to engage into the contract. Terms will not be covered in this section because they are handled differently than misrepresentations. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) (as amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 SI 2014/870) similarly cover other contracts in the B2C regime. The exact remedies provided by these regulations for consumers will not be covered in this section.

​English Contract law – Is the Exemption Clause or Unfair Term implied by law to be in effective?
We have examined the laws governing negligent liability. In this section, we'll examine how other categories of liability are governed under B2B and B2C regimes. The B2B regime's statutory control over exemption clauses The Sale of Goods Act (SGA) of 1979 and the UCTA of 1977 are the important statutes. Responsibility for contract violations Sections 13 through 15 of the SGA 1979, which you have studied in Chapter 5, are implied provisions that may be eliminated from a contract if it is appropriate to do so (s 6 UCTA 1977). What is logical? The UCTA of 1977 specifies this test under Section 11 and Schedule 2.

The term that seeks to limit liability must be fair and reasonable in light of all the factors that were, or should have been, in the parties' knowledge or contemplation at the time the contract was signed.

Relevant considerations as reasonableness test guidelines Relevant considerations as reasonableness test guidelines
The parties' capacity for negotiation
Equal bargaining power implies that the clause is fair.
Whether the customer was given a benefit in exchange for signing the contract.
It is supported by an inducement that the clause is reasonable.

Whether the client knew about the existence and scope of the term or should have reasonably known about it This shows that the clause is reasonable.

Was it reasonable at the time of the contract to expect compliance with the term, if liability is limited in the event that a provision is broken? If following the clause was not reasonable, it suggests that it was not reasonable.

Whether the products were created, altered, or processed specifically for the customer's purchase
Inferring that the clause is reasonable from this

The B2C regime's statutory regulation of unreasonable terms and exemption provisions
The CRA 2015 is the important statute.
It also regulates unjust terms in addition to exclusionary provisions. According to the CRA 2015, some mentioned terms cannot be excluded. For instance, if a trader excludes the conditions that are considered to be contained by sections 9 to 16 of the CRA 2015 and if a trader cannot exclude the phrase that he would provide a service with reasonable care and skill under section 49 of the CRA 2015, the consumer is not obliged.

S. 62 CRA 2015 goes even farther by stating that a consumer is not bound by an unreasonable term in a contract or notification.

An unfair term is what? According to Section 62 (4) of the CRA 2015, a term is unfair if, in violation of the criteria of good faith, it significantly distorts the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract to the detriment of the consumer. You must consider the nature of the contract's subject matter, all the circumstances in place at the time the term was agreed upon, and any other contract provisions.

​English Contract Law - Negligence and exclusionary provisions
Clauses that seek to limit liability for carelessness are subject to special regulations. The laws and common law establish the regulations. Control by statute over negligence-related death or personal injury exemption clauses Statutes typically make negligence-related death or personal injury exemption provisions unenforceable. This is the situation under the B2C (Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, s. 65) and B2B (Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977, s. 2) regimes.

Specific criteria of construction must be followed when interpreting exclusion clauses in relation to negligence liability (other than in regard to death or personal harm).
Rules of common law that relate to attempts to evade negligent responsibility
Does the exemption clause specify that it releases a person from negligence-related liability? If so, the clause is put into effect.

Is the wording of the clause broad enough to cover liability in negligence if there is no express mention of it therein? If the answer is affirmative but the loss in question relates to another legal theory, such as contract violation, the clause will exclude contractual liability but not negligent liability.
responsibility for negligence not resulting in death or personal injury
If you come to the conclusion that an exemption provision effectively excludes negligent liability (other than for death or personal damage), be aware that there is still one more obstacle to overcome. A negligence exemption clause is only enforceable under the B2B regime if it is reasonable (art. 2(2) of UCTA 1977). Such an exemption is only enforceable under the B2C system if it is fair (section 62(4)).

​English Contract Law –is the Claim covered by the wording in the exemption clause as a matter of interpretation
If you get to the conclusion that a clause has been incorporated into a contract, the next step is to determine if the terms of the clause cover the specific claim. Most frequently, this entails determining whether the exemption provision limits or excludes the claim that an injured party may pursue. If the language is obvious, you must consider what the words imply in their everyday, everyday context. The only time the courts will go beyond the written provisions of the contract to the context in which it was concluded is if the wording is unclear. The contra proferentem rule, which is explained below, is also used by the courts.
The contra proferentem rule states that any ambiguity or doubt in a contract's terms must be understood in a way that is least favorable to the party attempting to rely on it to reduce or avoid his obligation.

Contra proferentem rule
The contra proferentem rule states that ambiguity in an exemption clause's meaning must be resolved in a way that is least beneficial to the party attempting to rely on it.

English Contract Law – Incorporation of Unfair Terms.
All contract terms must be incorporated in accordance with the same fundamental standards, however these rules are included in this chapter because the common law rules are primarily based on unjust terms and exemption provisions. Through the use of a signature, reasonable notice, a continuous pattern of dealing, and common knowledge/awareness, unfair provisions may be included into contracts.

Integration through signature
The common consensus is that once someone signs a document, even if they haven't read it and don't understand what it says, they are then legally obligated by it. Three situations are exempt from this rule: Fraud/misrepresentation is not fact; the document is not binding; it is not my conduct. A signature on a document is obtained by deception or fraud. A person is not required to abide by an exemption clause if they sign a document with one out of deceit or deception.

It's not my doing, non est factum
If the following criteria are met, non est factum offers a person protection from enforcement: The person who signed the paper, through no fault of his own, did not comprehend the document he signed, and there was a radical or extremely significant discrepancy between what the person signed and what he thought he was signing.

Including by giving reasonable notice 
Without being signed, some documents serve to create agreements between parties. A train ticket is a prime illustration of such a paper. If fair notice is given to the other party, the terms in such documents are integrated into the contract. By using the following tests, you can assess if reasonable notice has been given: The document must generally have contractual effect, the notice must be given in a timely manner, and reasonable efforts must be made to bring the term to the opposing party's attention.

-prompt notice
Notice of the term must be given to the other party prior to or at the time the contract is made in order to be considered timely.

-To notify the opposite party of the term, reasonable measures must be taken.
The second requirement is that reasonable efforts must be made to bring the notice to the other party's attention. If the term, or a reference to it, is prominently posted on the front of the pertinent document and is common in the context, it will be incorporated. A message like this can appear on a website or the front of a train ticket. The terms themselves must be reachable in the case of a reference to them. Unless there is text on the front of the document that alerts the reader to the text on the back, it is unlikely that a term that is displayed on the back of a ticket will be used. It is unlikely that text that is covered by a stamp will be used. If the terms are burdensome or peculiar, the strategy is different. One that bears a greater cost or hardship than normal is an illustration of an unusual phrase. Additional steps must be taken to alert the other party to the unique or burdensome nature of the phrase. The "red hand rule" refers to the obligation to make extra efforts to bring the term to the other party's attention, even though in actuality the words are typically in bold, large print, or placed in boxes.

-The document ought to have legal force.
The term will not be integrated if it appears in a contract that is not generally known to have contractual implications.

assimilation through a constant dealing strategy
Even though a term was not disclosed to the other party in the precise contract to which a claim relates, it may be incorporated into that contract if parties consistently agree on it.

Common knowledge and awareness of industry practice incorporation
The last method of including a term in a contract is by providing proof that the parties have an understanding that the term is included in the contract because it is customary in the industry. To put it another way, proof that both parties were aware that a specific phrase pertained to their transaction since it is commonly used in that sector or trade. An illustration of this is when two parties collaborate in the crane rental market without explicitly defining all the parameters of their partnership. The court will rule that certain terms are included into the contract between such parties on the basis of industry practice if the evidence demonstrates that parties in the crane hire sector always operate on the basis of certain terms. It is not required to provide evidence of prior collaboration between the parties.

English Contract Law – Unfair Terms and Exemption Clauses  
Unfair terms are subject to particular rules under English law. This is due to unreasonable provisions that limit an injured party's options for relief or exclude them altogether. English law aims to balance this out. As a result, unjust terms may not always be enforced or may only be enforceable to the extent that they are reasonable.

Any clause in a contract that significantly imbalances the parties' rights and duties is referred to be an unfair term. Exemption provisions make up the majority of unreasonable terms.

An exemption clause is a term in a contract that excludes or restricts a party's liability, for instance, by capping liability at a given dollar amount or imposing a time restriction on liability.

The following conditions must be met for unfair terms to be enforceable: they must be part of the contract; they must address the claim; and they cannot be declared unenforceable by statute or common law.