Which of the following does not reflect the correct case law position in terms of which assessment of damages for contractual misrepresentation is done?

Question: Which of the following does not reflect the correct case law position in terms of which assessment of damages for contractual misrepresentation is done?

The correct case law position in terms of which assessment of damages for contractual misrepresentation is done is the reliance measure. This means that the innocent party is entitled to be compensated for the loss that they suffered as a result of relying on the misrepresentation.

The following does not reflect the correct case law position in terms of which assessment of damages for contractual misrepresentation is done:

The innocent party is entitled to be compensated for the loss that they would have suffered if the misrepresentation had been true.

This is known as the expectancy measure of damages, and it is not applicable in cases of contractual misrepresentation. The reason for this is that the innocent party is entitled to be compensated for the loss that they actually suffered, not the loss that they would have suffered if the misrepresentation had been true.

Here are some examples of damages that may be awarded in a case of contractual misrepresentation:

The difference between the value of the goods or services as represented and the value of the goods or services as actually delivered.
Any expenses that the innocent party incurred as a result of relying on the misrepresentation, such as travel expenses or legal fees.
Any lost profits that the innocent party suffered as a result of relying on the misrepresentation.

It is important to note that the innocent party is only entitled to damages for the losses that they can prove were caused by the misrepresentation. The innocent party also has a duty to mitigate their losses, which means that they must take reasonable steps to reduce the amount of their losses.