Claire's Chitchat

[G Angel]

AFF,

 

Back to the plot. 'Misrep' is indeed a common law tort, but there is also statutory protection under the Misrepresentation Act. However, it is of no use to SACFC in the circumstances described since, in order for a claim to arise, the offended party has to show it has entered into a contract it would not otherwise have done had the misrep not been made. The only potential avenue given the facts as described would be under the tort of deceit since Bedford Town are clearly aiming to mislead the public in making this statement. Nonetheless, without financial loss or siginficant damage to reputation, the opportunities for SACFC to make any recovery under this, admittedly fiendish to prove tortious right, must be considered limited.

[trevinho]

Ummm... I could quite easily claim that I only bought a programme at Bedford the other week becuase I saw someone else's and it said "Promgramme Of The Year 2001-2002" on it.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Nothing out of City's pocket though, is it?

[AFF]

Hi Trev.

 

In your case, it could well be a matter of 'obtaining money under false pretences', and that's a criminal act. I think that it comes under fraud.

 

I'm in the same position as you, but it was a good read.