Scribd
Upload
364 views1 page

Liability For False Statements Deceit: Loh Bee Tuan V Shing Yin Construction

This document discusses liability for false statements under the tort of deceit. It provides three requirements to prove deceit: 1) a false representation was made; 2) the person making the representation knew it was untrue or did not believe it was true; and 3) the representation was intended to induce another to act upon it. If these elements are met, damages can be recovered to financially restore the injured party. Two court cases are summarized that awarded damages for fraudulent misrepresentations relied upon.

Uploaded by

Shereen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
364 views1 page

Liability For False Statements Deceit: Loh Bee Tuan V Shing Yin Construction

This document discusses liability for false statements under the tort of deceit. It provides three requirements to prove deceit: 1) a false representation was made; 2) the person making the representation knew it was untrue or did not believe it was true; and 3) the representation was intended to induce another to act upon it. If these elements are met, damages can be recovered to financially restore the injured party. Two court cases are summarized that awarded damages for fraudulent misrepresentations relied upon.

Uploaded by

Shereen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LIABILITY FOR FALSE STATEMENTS

Deceit

Arises when there has been a fraudulent representation resulting in damage to another. The claimant
must prove fraud on the part of the defendant.

Loh Bee Tuan v Shing Yin Construction

The elements:-

i) false representation made by words or conduct


ii) the representation is made with knowledge that it is untrue or that the defendant has no
has no belief in its truth
iii) with the intention that it would be acted upon by the plaintiff
iv) it is acted upon with the consequence that damage is incurred by the plaintiff.

The remedy – damages with the object to put the injured party into a good position financially as he
would have been in if the tort has not been committed.

Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v Yeoh Ho Huat


Df (valuer) valued a piece of land at over RM64,000-00.
In reliance on this report, the P (bank) approved the loan of RM20,000 to the landowner.
Default in payment – land sold at RM7,000.
In an action against the D for fraudulent valuation, ct H:-

i) an action of deceit would lie at the instance of any person who had acted on the fraudulent
report of a valuer .
ii) defendant had no honest belief in the truth of the report of did not care regarding its truth
iii) although there is no contractual relationship between the parties, the D ought to have
known that his report would be relied upon by the P, so a duty of care arose.
iv) The P has suffered damage in reliance to the report.

T Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Co-operative Housing Society


M – director and secretary of the society
Society wanted to purchase a piece of land.
One Manickam bought the land for RM456,000 and later resold to the society at RM944,000.
He gave M RM122,00, a quarter of his profit.
H- where P takes action against a briber and the agent bribed, he only can recover either the amount of
bribe as money had and received by the agent bribed or the amount of the actual loss sutained in
consequence of his entering into the transaction. Could not recover both.
Thus, society had to elect either to claim from Mahesan the amount bribed or from manickam the net
profit he had made.

You might also like