When a party has been found to be maintaining a policy of nondisclosure, this can lead to charges of misrepresentation, and they can be used as the basis of a tortious action. Usually elements categorized as representing nondisclosure include terms that can directly effect the nature of the agreement, up to and including fraud.
Full Answer
Misrepresentation and nondisclosure typically refer to information or a fact withheld or misrepresented by a party implies negligence on their part. For example, an act or service provided by one party does not fulfill the terms of the agreement. The party’s actions may be considered unfulfilled because they:
Failed to disclose details that would prevent performance of the contract. For example, a homeowner wants to sell their home. They have a buyer willing to pay the asking price. However, the homeowner indirectly tells the buyer the roof is like new, but it is over 10 years old and leaks.
Usually misrepresentation represents a violation of an implied agreement due to one of the parties presenting a product, property, or service in manner or level of quality that is inaccurate to its real conditions or values.
Generally, as a rule, the greater one’s level of disclosure, the more diminished one’s level of responsibilities and liabilities are in most transaction of goods or services…
Misrepresentation and nondisclosure typically refer to information or a fact withheld or misrepresented by a party implies negligence on their part. For example, an act or service provided by one party does not fulfill the terms of the agreement.
This is not the same nondisclosure. Instead, the legal term refers to failing to tell the other party a fact about a contract or circumstances surrounding an issue .
Misrepresentation can be negligent or fraudulent. Negligent misrepresentation refers to an unintentionally false fact which induces the other party into making a contract.
Misrepresentation and nondisclosure are the foundation of many tort law cases. Although the two are separate, misrepresentation often implies negligence on the defendant’s part.
In tort law, misrepresentation, in most of its forms, represents a core violation to the standard of care, which is used in the determination of culpable negligence . Usually misrepresentation represents a violation of an implied agreement due to one of the parties presenting a product, property, or service in manner or level ...
This means that among the various subsections of tort law, cases of misrepresentation and nondisclosure can prove to be the easiest to form a legal consensus of opinion on whether negligence has happened, because the very idea of the act itself is a negligent action.
Where the conditions that are used to determine situations of misrepresentation and nondisclosure can become somewhat murky lie in the roles that are played by the somewhat abstract roles opinion and intention play in tort law and product representation. While both seem very basic, their significance in tort law is vital, especially since they can mitigate circumstances where responsibility, liability, materiality, and information need to be quantified and specified as much as possible when making a determination of fault. In both instances, intention and opinion can be very difficult to prove and establish under tort law, as their subjective nature can be difficult to quantify, causing situations where issues of plausible denial can prevent the formation of the unity of opinion that lies at the heart of nearly ever tort action.
The basis of responsibility in cases of misrepresentation and nondisclosure is based on a comprehensive nexus between disclosure and liability, both of which combine to determine the extent one party has over the services or product they represent in a tort law situation. What the basis of responsibility seeks to ascertain is the level to which an individual can be held accountable in a given a situation, the restitution that must be made if they are found to have committed an act of misrepresentation or nondisclosure, or the level to which their responsibility can be mitigated, up to and including exoneration. Generally, as a rule, the greater one’s level of disclosure, the more diminished one’s level of responsibilities and liabilities are in most transaction of goods or services…
While both seem very basic, their significance in tort law is vital, especially since they can mitigate circumstances where responsibility, liability, materiality, and information need to be quantified and specified as much as possible when making a determination of fault. In both instances, intention and opinion can be very difficult to prove ...
In both instances, intention and opinion can be very difficult to prove and establish under tort law, as their subjective nature can be difficult to quantify, causing situations where issues of plausible denial can prevent the formation of the unity of opinion that lies at the heart of nearly ever tort action.