Case Review. DOC

Title	Case Review.
Author	Fieza Zainul
Pages	2
File Size	31 KB
File Type	DOC
Total Downloads	250
Total Views	662

Summary

Description

Interpreting Case Case-note on Low Kon Fatt v Port Klang Golf Resort (M) Sdn Bhd Low Kon Fatt v Port Klang Golf Resort (M) Sdn Bhd Misrepresentation MLJ [1998] 6 MLJ 448 Claim allowed Facts The defendant was the licence-holder of a golf course at a resort. The plaintiff – lured by the defendant's brochure ('the brochure') which promised various sea sports facilities at the resort, signed up for membership at the resort. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the facilities provided (no sea sport facilities were provided). The plaintiff wanted to rescind the agreement and get the refund. Issue What can be said to be as a misrepresentation? Held Kamalanathan Ratnam J. Where the puffing or exaggeration has both the object and the result of inducing the represented to enter into the contract, the puffing or exaggeration must then form a representation. Comment (a) Applying different interpretation in using an exclusion clause. Clause with mention representation. In the case of B Sky B Ltd v Enterprise Services UK Ltd [2010] EWCH 86 (TCC) the court stated that while there is a reference to representations, there is nothing in the clause that indicates it is intended to take away a right to rely on misrepresentations. The judge consider that clear words are needed to exclude a liability for negligent misrepresentation and that this clause does not include any such wording. Whereas in this case, the court mentioned that there was no way that such a facility could have been provided due to the fact that the Port Klang Authority had subsequently refused such permission, the failure or inability to provide such a facility must go to the root of the contract. The defendant therefore cannot avail itself of this exclusion clause....