Can someone please help paraphrase and re write document below.

Was there a contract

Can he sue for breach of contract? What was the breach? Misrepresentation

Implementation did not result as epected. And he found out that the fault was the misrepresentation. Both parties signed, implementation :

Siosi finds that what was anticipated from signing the contract did not take place, can he sue for misrepresentation as to>

Talk about 4 contracts. States facts.He anticipated to receive what was said by James. There fo, yes he can sue for misrepresentation

Thad he not for the mis he would not have entered into the contract. Therefore he can claim losses. Eg.

In order for a contract to be valid there are elements to a contract that must be satisfied. We see that there was an agreement, where James leased his restaurant to Siosi in anticipation of payment for a 2 year period, also satisfying the element of consideration as something of value that is being passed from one party to another. There was also an intention for their contract to be legally binding as Siosi took over the restaurant from James, however Genuine consent, where parties to the contract must enter without force or pressure and giving full consent to be bind to the contract is in question. This

Issue :Whether Siosi can claim actionable misrepresentation against James

The Relevant Facts

According to the facts of this case, James had a small restaurant located close to the Vaisigano bridge that was leased to Siosi for 2 years. James was in a good position to make an informed estimate as to the future sales and profit of the restaurant when he stated how much profit the restaurant was making on average per year. Siosi who did not know better, relied on James statements. However, James had knowledge that the Vaisigano bridge will be close and failed to amend in his statements and the effects it will have on the future profits of the business. As the Vaisigano bridge creates a convenient route to the restaurant and its closure creates problems as possible customers would only have access through a small side road that did not pass directly by the restaurant. As a result, Siosi faced very low sales during his 2 year lease and struggle to meet payments.

Law/Rule: Misrepresentation : A statement of opinion is not a misrepresentation.

The exception: However, if the party making it is an "expert" i.e. in a better position to know the facts will be a misrepresentation.

Case Law:

The case Esso v Marden [1976] QB801, showcases similar facts as the case in question. Esso owns a petrol station that was leased to Marden. Esso, who was in a better position to make informed estimations on the business earnings made future profit predictions and Marden who was in no position to know any different, relied on Esso's judgment. Esso also omitted to revise their sales estimate

and in that; the court has been accepted that it was an actionable misrepresentation. Although the statement as to future sales was an opinion, it was an informed opinion. Esso were in a better position to know. They we in possession of facts which should have led to an accurate estimate.

Application:

In order to find out if Siosi can claim misrepresentation against James, it has to be proven that James' statement to induce Siosi to enter into a contract is false. Misrepresentation must be an unambiguous/clear statement of fact which is false that induced the other party to enter into a contract. However, "an exception is made when a statement of opinion is made by one who knows facts best or an expert; then it is often a statement of facts because there is an implicit assertion that facts are known which justifies the opinion" this was brought about by the case of Smith v Land &House Corporation(1884) 28 ChD7.This case showed that an expert for the purpose of misrepresentation is not necessarily a professional but can be someone who is in a better position to know the facts.

According to the facts of the case, in October 2018 Siosi obtained a two year lease for a small restaurant from James that is located near the Vaisigano bridge. James was in the best position to make informed estimation of future sales and profits of the restaurant and when he did James who did not know better relied upon it and he also knew of the closure of the Vaisigano Bridge which would affect vehicle access to the restaurant but made no alteration to his statements on the future succession in terms of profit for the business. James's fail to disclose this very important information caused Siosi much struggle to pay for the lease and received very low sales for a year and half of the 2 year lease.