Issue?Shahida the plaintiff a fashion designer wanted to beautify her new shop and went to Benjamin Looking local art gallery to enquire and purchase an artwork to make her shop attractive to the customers. Shahida explained to the Reagan the salesperson in this art gallery that she wanted any painting artwork by the local artists of the nineteenth century Hilda des Ste Croix. This local artist was well known and many people liked her paintings this is the reason as to why Shahida wanted to have one of her paintings in her shop to add value to the beauty of her shop. The issue in this case now is that Reagan the salesman showed Shahida another painting done by another painter but an apprentice of Hilda des Ste Croix. Thus, the artwork painting was not for Hilda des Ste Croix. Reagan explained to his client that he the painting was probably that of Hilda des Ste Croix because it had her label. Unfortunately, Benjamin had labeled wrongly this picture painting, it was not for Hilda des Ste Croix but that her apprentice. Shahida paid the £20,000 an amount that is charged for the painting works for this famous artist; however, since in an actual sense the painting was not that done by Hilda des Ste Croix, it was supposed to be sold at a price much lower than what shahida paid. Therefore, shahida feels that the contract between her and Benjamin Looking glass art gallery was breached since the item that she was sold was a misrepresentation. Rule?Misrepresentation is a common law embedded in the law of contract of the England and other Commonwealth countries.Misrepresentation in the definition is giving false information or statement one party in the process of signing a contract which then misleads the other party to sign a contract. The action of misrepresentation becomes available when the statement turns out to be untrue. According to the law op0f contract, if a contract features a misrepresentation that made one party enter into a contract then, such as contract can be either canceled when it has not yet been discharged fully or the plaintiff can claim damages when the time of the contract has elapsed.?Some of the landmark cases that were decided by the court on the basis of misrepresentation in contract are; Bisset v Wilkinson 1927 AC 177 where the court upheld that in case there was no fraud, the plaintiff had no right to rescind the contract on the claim that the defendant gave him a false statement that the plot he was buying would accommodate 2,000 sheep but after buying the plot, it could not accommodate and sustain this number of sheep. Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976 QB 801 was another landmark case where the court f0und that the defendant was guilty of misleading the plaintiff. Esso the defendant misled Mardon the plaintiff that the throughput of petroleum would reach 200,000 gallons of petrol in the third year of its operation but when that time came, Mardon had not reached this capacity since the facility was small as estimated by the defendant thus, the defendant misrepresented the information to induce the other party to sign a contract. Application? Legal basis There various accounts which Shahida could base her case against Benjamin looking glass art gallery. First, she can base her case on false misrepresentation where she would argue that the defendant gave her false information that misled her to believe that the item she was buying was that of the artists she wanted. She can argue in court by explaining that she had a trust and confidence with the defendant that he will sell to her a genuine item because of his experience. She can emphasize that she thought the contract was in good faith but the defendant ended up disappointing her by giving her a fake item in addition to overcharging her. Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties 1990 36 EG 114 was a similar case where the plaintiff filed a law sued against the defendant for misrepresentation of the information in the course of contract signing. The defendant was held liable for misrepresenting the information when entering into the contract and this led to inducement of the plaintiff in signing the contract. The court rescinded the contract as requested by the plaintiff. ?Another premise on which the plaintiff can stem her case is that she can argue in the court that the defendant failed to take a legal duty of care as expected and thus this led to her suffering loss of being overcharged on an item that is pretty substandard. In the law of contract, all the parties to the contract are required to take a legal duty of care in that they should play their part and responsibilities very well so that the other party cannot suffer any harm. However, in this case, Benjamin art gallery carelessly labeled an item wrongly which led to overcharging the client consequently suffering a loss. The plaintiff can emphasize in court the fact that the defendant had a legal duty of care to ensure that the item she was being sold was exactly the one that she ordered. Therefore, the plaintiff failed his legal duty of care he is supposed to the extent to the clients. Hedley Byrne v Heller 1964 AC 465 case one of the historical cases where the court emphasizes that someone acting as an agent to the principal should exercise a special duty of care to other parties the way the principal could do it. Thus, Reagan being an agent of Benjamin had a legal duty of care to ensure that the clients coming are served well without fraudulent. ?Another premise on which the plaintiff can argue this case is that is that the term of the contract was express in that the defendant had labeled the item is written meaning he was sure of what he was doing. The painting artwork was stocked in the art gallery and the defendant always sees it but he could not change the labeled. The plaintiff can try to convince the court that the defendant labeled this item deliberately to defraud the customers owing to the fact that he was an experienced artwork seller, he could easily know that the said painting artwork was wrongful labeled. Therefore, the defendant was negligent and should pay for the damages. Were it that it was an implied term were their terms are not written then it could be understandable but in this case, the defendant had used express terms by labeling the item a fact that cannot be ignored. The artwork of famous artists such as Hilda des Ste Croix cannot confuse anyone because her works are outstanding and they always have the signatures. Therefore, the claim or the argument the defendant may put that the item was mistakenly labeled is weak and cannot hold water in reference to his experience in this business.?Moreover, Benjamin the owner of the gallery did not later call the plaintiff later after finding that Reagan the salesperson had sold this item expensively despite mislabeling it. Thus, it was clear that the defendant had the intention of defrauding the clients by selling them fake items. Esso Petroleum v Mardon1976 QB 801 is also another case that was decided on the ground of negligence. The defendant had the capacity to appropriately advice the plaintiff on the capacity of throughout gallons of oil but induced the plaintiff to sign a contract that later led to losses. Thus, the defendant negligently failed to provide enough information to the other party before making the decision. ? Defenses Some of the defenses the defendant by use to counter argue this case are; first, the defendant may use contributory negligence to argue that the damages which the plaintiff suffered were actually partly due to his negligent. Benjamin can argue in court that it was the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the item she was buying was original and exactly what she wanted. However, the plaintiff over depended on the scanty information that was given by the salesperson. The plaintiff would have gone to an extent to ask other experts even after buying the item to establish whether she has got the right item, but she went with the item stayed with it for five years and later came complaining after it started to fade off. Thus, the plaintiff holds part of the responsibility for the damages caused, were that she was careful; she could not have incurred this damage. Pennington v Norris 1956 96 CLR 10 is one of the historical cases that were decided to base on contributory negligent defense. Butterfield V Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926 is another early case where contributory negligence was used as a defense ? Remedies ?There are various remedies the court uses in misrepresentation cases there is rescission where the court rescinds or restructure the contract so that the parties can sign it fresh on fair terms. Rescission makes the earlier signing to be void. Rescission of the contract seeks to remove the unfair terms which the superior party to the contract may have used to cause damage to the other party. Rescission of the contract is reached when the contract is still on the course of execution. Thus, the courts come in to rectify the unfair terms so that each party could fairly benefit from the contract. ?The second remedy is compensation for the damages. The courts usually order for the compensation for the damages caused by misrepresentation. The defendants are ordered to pay for the damages caused to the plaintiff if it is established that indeed the defendant misled the plaintiff in the course of signing the contract. Compensation remedy comes when the con5ract was long executed although unfairly. Conclusion?In this case, I could advise Shahida the plaintiff to go ahead by filing litigation against Benjamin Looking Glass for fraudulently misrepresenting the information during the time of the purchase of the art paint with an intention defrauding. From the possible arguments of both parties, Shahida the plaintiff has an upper hand and high chances of winning the case hence being compensated for the damages caused. The possible remedy the court could aware in this case is compensation for the damages caused to Shahida because the contract was executed long time ago there is no way the court could strike fairness other ordering compensation.