Whether they were misled intentionally or innocently will not affect the nature of the injury suffered by the victims of false statements. However, it makes a significant difference to the remedies available to the victims if they were misled intentionally or innocently. The victims of intentional misrepresentations can sue for damages, whereas the victim of an innocent misrepresentation can only ask for rescission. Should a distinction be drawn between fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation in determining the availability of damages as a remedy? Does the recognition of negligent misrepresentation solve the dilemma?