Howard Marine v Ogden [1978] QB 574

Court of Appeal

Basic Facts: D wanted to hire barges from C. C’s agent represented that the barges had a capacity of 1500 tonnes, though the actual capacity was only 1055 tonnes. The hire contract included a clause that D accepted the barges as satisfactory. After issues arose, D refused to pay based on the misrepresentation.

Issue for the Court: How does s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 apply when there is a misrepresentation?

Held : C’s misrepresentation about the barge capacity was actionable under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act. Even though C did not prove fraud, the misrepresentation was not reasonable, making C liable for the misrepresentation’s impact.