Contract: misrepresentation
A misrepresentation is material if it is one of the factors that induced the representee to enter into the contract. It is enough that, as a matter of fact, the representee was actually influenced by the representation. If a reasonable objective bystander would have been influenced it is for the representor to show that the representee was not influenced (Master Yield Ltd v Ho Foon Yung Anesis)
Leases: break clause: excess rent (for period after the date specified in an effective notice)
If rent is payable quarterly in advance (for example) and the lease term expires between quarters the tenant need only pay rent calculated to the end of the term. The same is true if the lease ends because of the exercise of a break right and it is clear from the outset that the notice will certainly be effective (there is no outstanding condition). If the effectiveness of the notice is conditional then there will often be an implied right to recover the excess advance rent once the lease has actually come to an end. This is all subject to the general principles of contractual interpretation (Marks & Spencer plc v Bnp Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd)
Proprietary estoppel
The detriment for proprietary estoppel purposes need not be substantial but it must be real and incurred in reliance on the relevant assurance (Cheung Pak Chuen v Au Yeung Wing Chi)
If the statement said to constitute an assurance or representation for promissory or proprietary estoppel purposes is open to more than one reasonable interpretation (one of which is fatal to the estoppel defence) then the representee is not entitled to rely on what was said without further clarification and there is no basis for an estoppel. (Kim v Chasewood Park Residents Ltd)
