When pondering whether a misrepresentation has occurred in a contract between two parties, Person A and Person B, where goods sold or supplied do not match the description initially provided, and whether any claims can be made in respect of this, there are a few points to consider.  

The starting point would be to consider what are the types of misrepresentation and what options are available to the person who entered into a contract after the misrepresentation occurred. 

The Misrepresentation Act 1967 illustrates the different types of misrepresentation that could have occurred and what are the options available in the event any kind of misrepresentation is made. 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

S. 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 states that:

• Where Person A made a representation to Person B, knowing beforehand that it was false or Person A was reckless as to whether it was true or false. 
• The misrepresentation by Person A was intended to mislead and cause Person B to rely  on the misrepresentation and enter into the contract 
• As a result, Person B suffered a loss.

In this situation, Person A would be liable to pay damages to Person B and the contract can be rescinded (This means the contract would be cancelled and unwound as though it never existed and Persons A and B would be restored to how they were before the contract occurred). 

Negligent misrepresentation

A negligent misrepresentation would simply be:

• Where, when entering into a contract, Person A made a misrepresentation to Person B recklessly and without grounds to believe it.  
• Person B relied on the misrepresentation and entered into the contract.  
• Person B suffered a loss as a result. 

Unlike with fraudulent misrepresentation, if the Court considers it would not be fair to cancel the contract, it has the power to award Person B damages instead, regardless of Person A’s innocence in making the misrepresentation.  

When considering this avenue, the Court will evaluate:

• The nature of the misrepresentation. 
• The loss Person A would suffer if the contract is upheld and continued.
• The loss Person B would suffer if the contract is unwound. 

Innocent Misrepresentation

In line with section 2 (1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, even if a misrepresentation was made without fraud or negligence, Person A could still be liable for damages to Person B. 

To avoid allegations of fraud or negligence, Person A would have to prove ‘that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.’  

Even if Person A is able to prove the above, Person B would still, nonetheless, be able to seek for the contract to be rescinded. 

Similar to a negligent misrepresentation, if the Court considers it would not be fair to cancel the contract, it has the power to award Person B damages instead, regardless of Person A’s innocence in making the misrepresentation.  

When considering this avenue, the Court will evaluate:

• The nature of the misrepresentation. 
• The loss Person A would suffer if the contract is upheld and continued.
• The loss Person B would suffer if the contract is unwound.  

There are limits to who can make a claim for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. These limits and details of how to navigate these are explored below. 

Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT)

This piece of legislation allows a consumer to unwind a contract:

• Where they have entered into a contract with a trader, whereby the trader would sell or supply goods to the consumer; or
•  Where there is a contract between the parties for the consumer to sell or supply goods to the trader  
• Where the consumer has paid the trader for them to supply a product.

(for definitions of consumer and trader, please see: https://agacivillitigation.co.uk/2026/06/06/consumer-to-business-business-to-business-consumer-to-consumer/)

In the above circumstances, the consumer can obtain compensation if: 

The trader has engaged in prohibited practices in relation to the goods, such as:

• providing misleading information or presenting true information in a misleading way. 
• Harassing, threatening physical force or pressuring a consumer to enter into a contract.
• Not following a code of conduct that applies to that trader’s profession. 
• The prohibited practice was a significant factor in the consumer deciding to enter the contract. 

Discount 

Alternatively, the consumer can seek a discount in a business to consumer relationship if:

• Firstly, the consumer has made 1 or more payments to the trader, or 1 or more payments have not been made by the trader to the consumer. 
• Secondly, the consumer has not already unwound the contract.  

The amount of the discount that the consumer can seek is as follows: 

• If the consumer has made 1 or more payments to the trader, they can recover the relevant percentage of these payments (this percentage is decided depending on how severely the trader had engaged in a prohibited practice).  
• If 1 or more payments have not been made, reduce as many of the payments by a relevant percentage, in line with how severely the trader had engaged in a prohibited practice. 

Reductions for: Minor prohibited practice is 25%, significant prohibited practice is 50%, serious prohibited practice is 75% and a very serious prohibited practice is 100%

The seriousness of the trader engaging in a prohibited practice is determined by: 

• Behaviour of the trader
• The impact of the behaviour on the consumer
• The time since the prohibited practice 

However, where the market price for a product is lower than the amount that was to be paid for it under the contract between the parties, the reduction would be the percentage difference between the market price and the amount to be paid under the contract. 

Example of calculating percentage difference between the market price and the amount to be paid under the contract: 

• product price under the contract £3000
• Market price for the product £2000
• £3000-£2000=£1000. 
• £1000/£3000=1/3

The application of these percentages and the severity of any prohibited practices by traders would be decided by the Court when considering the circumstances of each different case before it.  

Damages

The consumer has a right to damages if: 

• They have suffered a financial loss, because of the trader having engaged in a prohibited practice or 
• They have suffered alarm, distress or inconvenience because of the trader having engaged in the prohibited practice

The trader can defend themselves by showing the prohibited practice was because of: 

• A mistake or accident
• The trader relying on information supplied by another
• The actions of another person
• It was unforeseeable 
• The trader took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the prohibited practice. 

(for more information, please see the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024)    

Where this ties in with the Misrepresentation Act, is that if a consumer has a right to compensation or unwinding against the trader under CPUT 2024, they cannot also make a claim for misrepresentation.   

S. 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

However, if a consumer is having difficulties under CPUT, they can make a claim against their credit card company under s. 75 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if the credit card company was in the middle of the transaction; there would be a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship.  

S. 75 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that, ‘If the debtor…has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.’ 

There are some points to consider in respect of the application of the section:

• This section only applies if a single product or service, provided by the trader, cost more than £100 and less than £30,000. 
• This section does not apply where a product has been purchased through a third-party seller like Amazon, as there would need to be a direct link between the credit card company and supplier.  
• This section does not apply where the consumer is to repay a Buy Now Pay Later provider (such as Klarna or PayPal) in respect of a product.  

Depending on any prior agreement, the credit card company will be compensated by the supplier for any loss it suffered through a claim having been brought by the consumer. 

The application of many of the legal concepts in this post would be decided by the Court when considering the individual circumstances of each different case before it. 

For more information or to discuss further, please contact us here: 

The information provided in this post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Reading this post or contacting us through it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Laws, regulations and precedents change frequently. Please feel free to contact the writer regarding the specifics of your individual situation before taking or refraining from any action.