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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll