Search results
Legal Case Summary. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337. Tort law – False representation. Facts of Derry v Peek. In the prospectus released by the defendant company, it was stated that the company was permitted to use trams that were powered by steam, rather than by horses.
Derry v Peek House of Lords Citations: (1889) 14 App Cas 337; (1889) 5 TLR 625. Facts The directors of a tramway company issued a prospectus which stated that the company had statutory authority to use steam power instead of horses.
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, or (ii) does not believe in the statement, or (iii) is reckless as to its truth.
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff brought suit after it bought shares in Defendant’s company, under the belief that Defendant would have the right to use steam power, as opposed to other companies, which would not. Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Derry v. Peek. House of Lords. 14 App. Cas. 337 (1889) Written by Sean Carroll, JD. Facts. Henry William Peek (plaintiff) received a prospectus of a train company which stated that due to a new law, the company could begin to use steam or mechanical power in place of the typical horse drawn power.
Derry v Peek (1889) 5 T.L.R. 625. In a company prospectus the defendant stated the company had the right to use steam powered trams as oppose to horse powered trams. However, at the time the right to use steam powered trams was subject of approval of the Board of Trade, which was later refused.
For there to be fraud there must be a false representation made: knowingly; without belief in its truth; or. recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false. If fraud is proven, the motive is irrelevant, it does not matter if there was no intention to cheat or injure.
Derry v. Peek. [1875] 14 App Cas 337. [HOUSE OF LORDS.] WILLIAM DERRY, J. C. WAKEFIELD, M. M. MOORE, J. PETHICK, AND S. J. WILDE APPELLANTS; AND SIR HENRY WILLIAM PEEK, BARONET RESPONDENT. 1889 July 1. LORD HALSBURY L.C. , LORD WATSON , LORD BRAMWELL , LORD FITZGERALD , and LORD HERSCHELL. July 1. LORD HALSBURY L.C.: —
Derry v Peek. Smart Summary (Beta) Facts. The Directors of the National Bank of Greece issued a prospectus inviting people to subscribe to the bank's shares. The prospectus stated that the bank had the right to use steam power as its motor under the special Act of Parliament it had obtained.
Jan 30, 2013 · Derry v. Peek. (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337. (Misrepresentation or Fraud—Collateral Warranty) FACTS: A tramway company’s prospectus stated that it had the right to use steam power for moving carriages as an absolute right, though in actuality it was subject to condition of Board of Trade (BoT).
