Providing a Statement

[Aquasition]

I've been looking at some case studies on a person giving their opinion or stating facts that are "to the best of their knowledge".

It is understood that there is always a duty to negotiate with care: 'if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable.

If it turns out that the information given could not have reliably been given but it was stated to be to the best of their knowledge, would this form a negligent mis-statement?

[Amethyst]

Re: Providing a Statement

Are we talking about opinions/ facts to the best of their knowledge within the courtroom (eg. yes this agreement is same as all those sent out at that time) or in contract making processes (eg. this shop is very busy and takes over £20k a week) ?

For contracts I would believe misrepresentation is the area to be looking at but its difficult to pinpoint what helps without knowing a little more about the case? We had a bit of a discussion about innocent/negligent misrep with regards bank charges around this post Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - CCA and UTCCR arguments

This might be more relevant though

Hurst v Hone 2010

To the extent that it is not proved that he knew they were false, the cause of action is negligent mis-statement on the basis that his relationship with the claimants was such that he owed them a duty of care to ensure that what he was telling them was true, and that he had had no reasonable grounds for thinking that they might be true.

[Aquasition]

Re: Providing a Statement

Someone gave my insurers a statement regarding security devices.

I did not agree with the broad statement that he had made. I confronted him and was told that the statement referred only to a period of time.

I then received a copy of the statement and rather than referring to a period of time it referred to the whole time.

In my mind he was deceitful in telling me that it only referred to a period of time.

Turning to the statement he gave.

His statement implies that not only did he see my boat almost daily, but also the other 250 plus boats. There was no reason for him to have paid particular interest in my boat per se or with regard to the security devices attached to it; it is assumed therefore, that he was knowledgeable of all boats and their security devices.

It is highly questionable that he would have cause to visit every part of the Marina Complex on an almost daily basis. Allowing the benefit of doubt and assuming that he did, it would have been extremely unlikely that he would check the security devices of 250 plus boats even on an ad hoc basis.

If, as implied, he did check the security devices, he would not be capable of doing so without walking around each boat. To do this within his normal hours of duty, he would need to be employed mainly for this purpose – which he is not.