header-logo header-logo

Spot the difference

08 March 2013 / Michael Twomey
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
web_twomey_1

Michael Twomey examines the courts’ approach to warranties & representations in share purchase agreements

Before signing a share purchase agreement (SPA), the parties negotiate warranties to be given by the seller. Drafts are exchanged. The SPA is signed. The buyer alleges that a warranty is incorrect. He can sue for breach of warranty. But can he sue for misrepresentation? The point’s significance was recently highlighted where a warranty damages claim, according to the judge, was worth about £6m, whereas misrepresentation claim damages were stated to be in the region of £17m.

A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact that induces the representee to enter a contract. A warranty is a contractual statement of fact made by the warrantor to the warrantee. So presumably a warranty could amount to a representation. Indeed, this logic found favour with Arnold J in Invertec Ltd v De Mol Holding BV [2009] EWHC 2471 (Ch): “363. Secondly and more fundamentally, the warranties in question also amount to representations of fact as to the state of Volente…The warranties

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll