Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd
Given that materiality, intention to induce and inducement are requirements for actionable misrepresentation inducing a contract, there was no logical reason the court could find why they should not be elements of the act to be proven (as opposed to the unlawfulness component) of the delictual action for pure economic loss arising out of a negligent misstatement. If that were the case, the plaintiff would be required in respect of the act to establish
- a statement
- which was false;
- that the misstatement was material in the sense that it would have influenced or induced a reasonable man to act or rely thereon;
- that the defendant intended that the plaintiff, or a person in the position of the plaintiff, to act or rely thereon; and
- that the plaintiff in fact acted or relied thereon: that is, he was in fact induced.
These factors wouldn't be considered in the unlawfulness investigation.
References
- Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd 2000 (4) SA382 (W).
Notes
- ^ 2000 (4) SA 382 (W).