Heilbut, Symons Co v Buckleton (1913) Ac 30
Heilbut, Symons & Co. were rubber merchants who were underwriting shares of what they claimed was a rubber company. Buckleton, the defendant called up a manager at Heilbut to inquire about the shares. In response to the questions, the manager stated that they were "bringing out a rubber company". Based on this statement, Buckleton purchased a large amount of shares. The shares turned out not to be for a rubber company and in addition the shares did very poorly. Buckleton then sued for breach of warranty.
Lord Moulton identified two ways that the action could be successful. First, if the plaintiff could show fraudulent misrepresentation "or what is equivalent thereto, must be made recklessly, not caring whether it be true or not." Second, if there was intent to be held to a promise then there may be a collateral contract, that would bind Heilbut to their representation. However, they are difficult to find, and, on the fact, none was found.
He went on to say "It is, my Lords, of the greatest importance, in my opinion, that this House should maintain in its full integrity the principle that a person is not liable in damages for an innocent misrepresentation, no matter in what way or under what form the attack is made. In the present case the statement was made in answer to an inquiry for information. There is nothing which can by any possibility be taken as evidence of an intention on the part of either or both of the parties that there should be a contractual liability in respect of the accuracy of the statement. It is a representation as to a specific thing and nothing more."
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
