One of the significant cases in which rules related to Misrepresentation has been discussed in the case of Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556. This case was related to a situation where misrepresentation had been made unintentionally but in a negligent way. The person who had made the misrepresentation had the opportunity to avoid it if he acted as a reasonable person towards handling the situation. The court in this case held that the defendant had been guilty for providing a wrong advice to the plaintiff which he could have avoided as a reasonable person and thus the defendant have to pay damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also allowed to rescind the contract.
Through the application of the rules discussed in Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt in the present situation it can be stated that Emma has negligently misrepresented the use of D200 shock absorbers to Richard. If she would have been careful as a reasonable person she would know that D200 were not suitable for rough roads and Richard relied on such advice to get into the contract. The jeep has suffered damages with $2000. Thus as Richard relined on the misrepresented facts to get into a contract for D200 and Emma could have avoided such misrepresentation, Richard as per the above discussed rule may get out of the contract and claim damages for his loss.
The issue in context of the situation is that whether Richard can successfully defend a claim from George for additional money.
The relevant law applicable in the situation is related to rules of consideration and promissory estoppels
When a person partially pays the consideration of a contract in full settlement of the debt it is not a valid consideration. This is a well established principle in contract law which has been first introduced by the Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a case and then applied in the Stilk v Myrick  EWHC KB J58 case.
In situation where the application of common law results in inequitable results, equity may intervene. The doctrine of promissory estoppels as used in the case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988)HCA 7 is applied to make a promise without consideration enforceable at law. However, the doctrine is only applied as a “shield and not a sword” which signifies that it can only used to defend a claim. The doctrine is furthermore only applied when it would not be unjust for let the promisor go back on his promise.
Part consideration has been paid by Richard to George as under the lease agreement he had to pay the rent along with 10% increase and he only paid the actual rent without the increase. The part payment although sanctioned by George cannot be legally valid if the provisions of the Pinnel's Case is applied. However Richard has already used the money to buy tools and thus he does not have money to pay George and there has been a change in his position. Thus he can used the doctrine of promissory estoppels as a “shield” to defend the claim from George.
The issue in context is to determine whether Richard can sue Tom for not purchasing the 1979 Mercedes 450SEL.
The rules related to rejection of offer are to be applied in the situation. The case which deals with this rule is Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. The case rules that no offer can be accepted once rejection of the offer has been done. The case further rules that an offer will be rejected if the offeree makes a counter offer. in addition the case states that any changes to offer terms is treated as counter offer.
The offer made by Tom was not consistent with the advertisement as it had a price of $1500 less than the advertisement price. The price offered by Tom was not found to be suitable by Richard initially as he stated that he wants a price of $19000 for the 1979 Mercedes 450SEL. The additional price of $500 was a counter offer to Tom’s original offer. Tom’s offer thus got counter offered and rejected by Richard. As soon as it got rejected, the offer can to an end and was not available for acceptance. Thus Richard cannot make a successful attempt of acceptance and no contract is formed,
Another rule of consideration other than part consideration is related to past consideration. An act or omission done in the past is not eligible as a lawful consideration required for a contract as provided by the case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234.
According to Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1979) UKPC 17 The rule is subjected to an exception which states that An act or omission done in the past is lawful consideration of it is done because the promisor had requested it to be done and the parties reasonably believed it to be compensated.
Application Looking after the garage belonging to Richard was a past consideration on the part of Martin as it was done before Richard made him the promise to provide his car for free. Thus it cannot be a lawful consideration. The exception to the law is also not eligible to be applied here as Richard did not request Martin to care for his garage and did not believe it to be reasonably compensated.
Richard did not breach any agreement as it was not formed.
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1979) UKPC 17
Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a
Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234.
Stilk v Myrick  EWHC KB J58 case.
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988)HCA 7