The essential condition of the contract is that Shahida specifically wanted to purchase a painting by the local nineteenth-century artist Helda de Ste Croix. Shahida probably would not have purchased the painting if it were not for the sales assistant's assurance, Reegan's assertion, that the painting actually belongs to the artist she is looking for. The display of the painting in the shop with the name label Helda de Ste Croix is ​​equivalent to demonstrating that the painting is indeed by the declared artist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. Being an employee of the store, Reegan is expected to have a fair amount of experience and knowledge of the items he sells. Shahida is simply a shop owner and it is not up to her to verify whether the painting was truly by the artist she is trying to purchase. Reegan's statement was instrumental to her entering into a purchase contract (e.g. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623). In the Sale of Goods Act 1979, ss 14 it is stated that 'When the seller sells goods in the course of a trade, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.' Evidently from the facts of the case the quality of the apprentice's painting is not as good as that from which the original painter Shahida should have purchased it. At the time of purchase both parties believed that the right product was being sold and purchased. In this case there was a misrepresentation of facts and as Lord Justice Bowen stated in Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7, p. 15 “It is important to note that it is often wrongly assumed that a statement of opinion cannot involve the statement of a fact. In a case where the facts are equally known to both parties, what one party says to the other is often no more than an expression of opinion. The statement of such an opinion is in a sense the statement of a fact, about the state of the man's mind, but only of an irrelevant fact, for it makes no difference what the opinion is. But if the facts are not equally known on both sides, then the statement of the person who knows the facts best very often involves the statement of a material fact, since he implicitly claims to know facts that justify his opinion. essential object of the contract, therefore the painting was correct. What has been wrong is the term or condition of the contract which could be a breach of a term which would terminate the contract or a warranty which would entitle you to damages. Shahida has actionable cause of misrepresentation of inducement because Reegan's statement inclined her to purchase the painting. Reegan's interest is in selling the paintings, so it is natural to consider that he is aware that Shahida will act on his statements of opinion. Section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides that where a person has been induced to enter into a contract by reason of a negligent misrepresentation, "and is entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if in any dispute arising out of the contract it is stated that the contract should or has been terminated, the judge or arbitrator may declare the contract to exist and award damages in lieu of termination, if he thinks fit be fair in doing so..."Remember: This is just one example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay Reegan had no intention of committing fraud and since he doesn't.