Discussion
Following on from my previous thread....I am have taken someone to court for non-payment and nearing the end of the case I have discovered that they have made false representations resulting in them evading thousands in tax. I have applied to the court to amend my claim but it has been rejected on the basis that judgment has been given and it's too late to amend. We are now in front of a quantum judge.
I understand that the advantage of raising the issue of false representation is that the contract becomes void and I stand to be awarded a much higher amount.
Can anyone tell me if there is route to justice or is this my only bite at the cherry? Obviously I can report them to HMRC but I would also like to have the contract voided to make up for what I've had to suffer over the past couple of years.
I understand that the advantage of raising the issue of false representation is that the contract becomes void and I stand to be awarded a much higher amount.
Can anyone tell me if there is route to justice or is this my only bite at the cherry? Obviously I can report them to HMRC but I would also like to have the contract voided to make up for what I've had to suffer over the past couple of years.
Voltaire says that better is the enemy of good. Don't over egg your pudding. Greed is not good. Insert further aphorisms of choice here [ ].
Your rights in relation to the contract merged in the judgment, to use the technical term. That means that the contract and causes of action in relation to it are now replaced by rights under a judgment. There is a rule called the rule in Henderson v Henderson that requires you to sue on all claims at once, and you are supposed to use reasonable diligence to identify all possible claims before judgment. Finality in litigation is a salutary judicial policy.
It is not true that misrepresentation avoids a contract. In some circumstances a contract may be rescinded because of misrepresentation made by one party to the other party to the contract, but all depends on the facts. You have stated no facts upon which advice can be given. Anyway, that's me done for this thread, as it has the sniff of grabbies about it, and, being an old fart, I think that a bit of please and thanks never goes amiss.
Your rights in relation to the contract merged in the judgment, to use the technical term. That means that the contract and causes of action in relation to it are now replaced by rights under a judgment. There is a rule called the rule in Henderson v Henderson that requires you to sue on all claims at once, and you are supposed to use reasonable diligence to identify all possible claims before judgment. Finality in litigation is a salutary judicial policy.
It is not true that misrepresentation avoids a contract. In some circumstances a contract may be rescinded because of misrepresentation made by one party to the other party to the contract, but all depends on the facts. You have stated no facts upon which advice can be given. Anyway, that's me done for this thread, as it has the sniff of grabbies about it, and, being an old fart, I think that a bit of please and thanks never goes amiss.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th May 19:38
I will pop back in to say that the civil law is not there for revenge. It is for the rather limited redress of grievances that blunt instruments like awards of money can provide. No healing, not that much vindication, just cash. We gave up on vendetta and moved to law a thousand years ago. Litigation is not as much fun as the blood feud but it makes for more peace. If you want the Chinese proverb about revenge, well, you probably already know it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff