Question

Apply the given legal principles to the facts provided in the following of the question and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle 1 : A misrepresentation arises when a person makes a false statement of fact to another which induces the other party to enter into a contract, resulting in loss to that other party.
Principle 2 : When consent to an agreement is caused by misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
Facts : It was Kritika’s mother’s 50^th birthday on 9th February 2021. Kritika decided to organise a lavish celebration to celebrate the event. Kritika’s mother used to play the piano before her marriage. However, after Kritika was born, she was unable to take out any time to pursue her interest in playing the instrument. Kritika learnt about this from her maternal grandmother a few days before her mother’s birthday. She decided to give her mother a piano on her 50^th birthday.
She visited Himanshu’s piano store for this purpose. Himanshu showed Kritika all the pianos available at his store and explained the features of each model. Kritika had no prior knowledge of pianos and hence relied upon Himanshu’s opinion. She saw a vintage piano and was immediately drawn to it. Being a shrewd businessman, Himanshu saw an opportunity to sell the piano and said “They don’t make them like this anymore. It’s got a fine tone and it’s really cheap at ` 50,000”.
Kritika purchased the piano and gifted the same to her mother. However, when her mother started playing it, she immediately realized that the piano was of an inferior quality and that the tone was not proper. Kritika and her mother approached Himanshu and asked him to either replace the piano or refund the money. Himanshu refused to do either. What would be the strongest argument that Himanshu could make ?

• A. Himanshu is not liable to do either because it is only Kritika’s mother’s subjective opinion that the piano was ‘inferior’ and that the tone was not ‘proper’.
• B. Himanshu is not liable to do either because there is nothing to suggest that Kritika’s decision was based purely on Himanshu’s statement.
• C. Himanshu is not liable to do either the piano since Kritika should have done her due diligence and should have been more careful in selecting the piano.
• D. Himanshu is not liable to do either because he only gave Kritika his opinion and did not make any false statement of fact

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

To determine the most appropriate answer based on the provided principles and facts, let us analyze the situation: 

Principle 1: Misrepresentation occurs when someone makes a false statement of fact that induces another party to enter into a contract, resulting in loss. 
Principle 2: An agreement becomes a voidable contract at the option of the party misled by misrepresentation. 

Facts Analysis: Kritika bought a piano from Himanshu's store based on his statement. Himanshu described the piano using phrases like "fine tone" and "really cheap," which are subjective opinions rather than statements of fact. Thus, determining whether misrepresentation occurred is crucial. 

1. Did Himanshu make a false statement of fact? 
Kritika was influenced by Himanshu's opinion, not a verifiable fact. Statements such as "fine tone" are subjective and not factual claims. 

2. Was Kritika induced to enter the contract based on a factual statement? 
No evidence suggests that Kritika relied solely on a factual misrepresentation by Himanshu. 

Therefore, applying these analyses and considering the principles, the strongest argument for Himanshu is that his statements were opinions, not false statements of fact. Kritika's consent was not caused by misrepresentation. Thus, under these principles, Himanshu is not liable because he only gave Kritika his opinion and did not make any false statement of fact.