MISREPRESENTATION

In a case where fraudulent material misrepresentations have been deliberately made with a view improperly to influence the outcome of the negotiation of the contact in favour of the maker and his principal, by an experienced player in the relevant market, there is the most powerful inference that the fraudster achieved his objective, at least to the limited extent required by Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459, All ER Rep 856—namely that his fraud was actively in the mind of the recipient when the contract came to be made.