Revising misrepresentation of a contract

Contracts uberrimae fidei. (contracts in upmost goodfaith)

An example of a contract uberrimae fidei is an insurance contract. It is the duty of the insured person to give full information on every material fact. What is material depends upon the following: was the fact one that a prudent insurer would take into account in weighing up the risk? Material does not mean that if the fact had been disclosed it would have had a decisive effect on the insurers’ decision whether to take the risk.

See Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd

Sticky this or w.e LOL just link people to it when they ask

okay i dont understand any of that lol..

The important bits...

It is the duty of the insured person to give full information on every material fact.

And...are modifications something they would consider when weighing up the risk of insuring someone? Yes...

So declare mods ^_^

I tried declaring Gaz and Karl but they quoted me an extra £500!

but yes... declare mods... If you can't pay the dough you're not going low...

I tried declaring Gaz and Karl but they quoted me an extra £500!

but yes... declare mods... If you can't pay the dough you're not going low...

haha mint

I tried declaring Gaz and Karl but they quoted me an extra £500!

but yes... declare mods... If you can't pay the dough you're not going low...

VERY TRUE!

i cant afford it, so I'm staying a truck for another year!!

meh, i've declared no mods on my car...

everything on my car is the standard parts, just painted or subtly changed, apart from the sound system and golf steelies.

massive grey area this on small mods, i mean for the lay man not us 'modifiers'

for example its actually a declarable modification to alter the brand of the tyres on a car, even if they are the same size and spec.

so theres literally thousands of drivers out there with what they think is a standard car......or is it????lol

The biggest grey area of all - Towbars, they are a vehicle modification but how many actually declare them?

A mod, when using common sense terms would be described as:

A mod which physically alters the manufacturer specification of a car, other than which would concern parts which, over time, will require replacements (e.g. Tyres, timing belts, water pumps etc.)

That's at least how I'd sum it up...however, I would like to know what the courts would say about adjustable suspension as the fact of the matter is, you can pick up cheaper coilovers than standard suspension struts, so therefore it is a cheaper alternative....what if it was the same height though? Surely the courts couldn't prosecute a consumer for buying a product cheaper than the OEM spec simply because it is adjustable...as long as it was at the same height?

I got pulled in a civic a little while ago and argued this very thing with the copper and he was fine with it. The things he pulled me for were the 17" wheels and exhaust, i simply stated that the wheels were standard honda items and pointed out the honda badges and casting inside and that the powerflow stainless exhaust was as quiet as standard (it nearly was.....) cheaper and would last longer...... he looked the car over found nothing else and chatted to me about all the halfrauds shitbox cars on the road and how i seemed like a sensible lad and he sent me on my way, i think as longs the mods aren't blatantly obvious or dangerous you can normally politely get away with them. If you say something like "yeah its well loud bangin race exhaust that me an my 12yr old mate fitted with cable ties wha's the problem?!!!" expect to be fined

ah good old contract law. at the end of the day, if you get pulled by the fuzz declaring a case citation will get you nowhere but the cop giving you more grief.

an insurance contract is pretty unique as its one that is made in good faith by the insurer, and if you have taken the contract up in bad faith [ie knowing you should have declared something that may would of made the insurer not take up that contract] then the contract is voidable. therefore if you rely on it, the contract will be void.

all that case is stating from that peice of the judgement I'm guessing [i've not read the facts but i will when i go back to uni next week] is that certain parts will be replaced with none OEM ones over time and whether its reasonable in fact [the real world] to expect factory parts. and if the insurer had known that they wernt factory that it would be a reasonable assumption they would not have taken up the contract in good faith.

so in summary, further confirmation of a grey area in the law. unless you have very similar facts to that case when relying on a contract that has been made void, you will still be in shit

Edited 14 September, 200917 yr by doug