About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


3 Stetson Bus. L. Rev. 35 (2024)
The Valuation Date of Benefits Received by a Victim of Fraud

handle is hein.journals/setnbisr3 and id is 41 raw text is: THE VALUATION DATE OF BENEFITS RECEIVED BY A VICTIM OF FRAUD Sirko Harder* . INTRODUCTION In English law, damages for a fraudulent misrepresentation that has induced the claimant to enter into an unfavourable contract aim to place the claimant in the position as if the contract had not been made.1 The measure of such damages was first laid down in cases in which the claimant was induced to purchase an asset from the defendant or a third party for an inflated price.2 The basic amount is the difference between the contract price and the actual value (if any)3 of the asset at the date of purchase.4 Where the asset has since depreciated in value, © 2023, Sirko Harder. All Rights Reserved. Ph.D., University of Aberdeen, 2006; L.L.M., University of Queensland, 2003; Doctor iuris, University of Tubingen, 2001. The author is a Reader in Law at the University of Sussex. Thank you to the participants of the Twelfth Remedies Discussion Forum for their ideas and suggestions for this Article. Any error is mine. 1. Smith New Ct. Sec. Ltd. v. Citibank NA [1997] AC 254 (HL) 281 (approving Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. [1969] 2 QB 158 (CA)). 2. Most cases involved the purchase of shares. See, e.g., Peek v. Derry (1887) 37 Ch D 541 (CA); McConnel v. Wright [1903] 1 Ch 546 (CA). For assets other than shares, see, e.g., Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. [1969] 2 QB 158 (CA) (business); Butler-Creagh v. Hersham [2011] EWHC 2525 (QB) (real property). 3. If the asset had no value, the claimant could recover the contract price. See Twycross v. Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469 (CA); 4 Eng. Ltd. v. Harper [2008] EWHC 915 (Ch), [2009] Ch 91. This applies even if the contract cannot be rescinded. Burki v. Seventy Thirty Ltd. [2018] EWHC 2151 (QB) [174]-[175]. 4. E.g., Peek v. Derry (1887) 37 Ch D 541 (CA); McConnel v. Wright [1903] 1 Ch 546 (CA); Glossop Carton and Print Ltd. v. Contact (Print and Packaging) Ltd. [2021] EWCA Civ 639, [2021] 1 WLR 4297 [36]-[37], [42], [59]. Some scholars regard an award in the basic amount as a substitute for the right infringed and not as compensation for loss. See Jason W Neyers, 'Form and Substance in the Tort of Deceit' in FORM AND SUBSTANCE IN THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS (Andrew Robertson and James Goudkamp eds., Hart, 2019) 326 (citing Robert Stevens, TORTS AND RIGHTS (Oxford University Press, 2007) 60). This makes no difference to the arguments advanced in this Article.