A Misrepresentation is defined at common law as a "statement of fact made by one party to the other party, which is false.

From looking at the facts laid out by Bruce in his letter to me regarding his purchase of a second hand Mercedes from Asbury Motors it seems that the most likely action is that of misrepresentation. A Misrepresentation is defined at common law as a "statement of fact made by one party to the other party, which is false. And while not necessarily forming a term of the contract, is yet one of the main …

…courts did decide that Restitutio in Integrum was impossible then damages may be awarded. Overall, my advice to Bruce would be that there is a possibility that the courts would decide that the statement regarding the fuel consumption by Clarence was a Negligent Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and would allow Bruce the right of rescission and he would be able to get his money back as well as any damages awarded by the courts.