{"id":"misrepresentation-act-1972","name":"Misrepresentation Act 1972","slug":"misrepresentation-act-1972","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":105974,"registerId":"sa-misrepresentation-act-1972-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Misrepresentation Act 1972","content":"South Australia\nMisrepresentation Act 1972\nAn Act to provide criminal sanctions against misrepresentation in certain commercial transactions; to expand the remedies available at common law and in equity for misrepresentation; and for other purposes.\n\nContents\nPart 1—Preliminary\n1\tShort title\nPart 2—Criminal sanctions against misrepresentation in certain commercial transactions\n4\tMisrepresentation made in the course of trade or business\nPart 3—Expansion of remedies available at common law and in equity for misrepresentation\n5\tInterpretation\n6\tRemoval of certain bars to rescission\n7\tDamages for misrepresentation\n8\tExclusion clauses\n9\tApplication of Part\nLegislative history\n\nThe Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:\nPart 1—Preliminary\n1—Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Misrepresentation Act 1972.\nPart 2—Criminal sanctions against misrepresentation in certain commercial transactions\n4—Misrepresentation made in the course of trade or business\n\t(1)\tWhere, in the course of a trade or business, a misrepresentation is made by the person by whom the trade or business is conducted, a person duly authorised to act on his or her behalf, or a person acting in the course of his or her employment—\n\t(a)\tfor the purpose of causing or inducing any other person to enter into a contract; or\n\t(b)\tfor the purpose of causing or inducing any other person to pay any pecuniary amount, or to make over or transfer any real or personal property, to the person by whom the representation is made or any other person,\nthe person by whom the trade or business is conducted, and the person by whom the representation is made, are each guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: \n\t(a)\tin the case of a body corporate—$100 000; or\n\t(b)\tin any other case—$20 000.\n\t(2)\tWhere in any proceedings under this section it is proved that a misrepresentation in fact acted as a material inducement to any person—\n\t(a)\tto enter into a contract; or\n\t(b)\tto pay any pecuniary amount, or to make over or transfer any real or personal property, to the person by whom the representation was made, or any other person,\nand that, in consequence, the person by whom the representation was made, or a person on whose behalf, or in whose employment, that person was acting, derived any direct or indirect consideration or material advantage, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the representation was made for the purpose of inducing the person to whom it was made to enter into that contract, to pay that pecuniary amount, or to make over or transfer that real or personal property, as the case may require.\n\t(3)\tIt is a defence to a prosecution under this section—\n\t(a)\tthat the person by whom the representation was made believed upon reasonable grounds that the representation was true; or\n\t(b)\twhere the defendant is not the person by whom the representation was made—\n\t(i)\tthat the defendant took all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of offences against this section by persons acting on his or her behalf, or in his or her employment; or\n\t(ii)\tthat the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the representation had been made, or that it was untrue.\n\t(4)\tFor the purposes of this section a representation constitutes a misrepresentation if it is false in any material particular.\n\t(6)\tThis section does not affect any civil remedy, or any other statutory sanction or remedy, in respect of a misrepresentation.\n\t(9)\tProceedings for an offence against this section must not be commenced unless the Attorney-General has consented to the commencement of those proceedings.\n\t(10)\tIn any proceedings for an offence against this section, an apparently genuine document purporting to record the consent of the Attorney-General to the commencement of those proceedings will be accepted as proof of that consent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.\nPart 3—Expansion of remedies available at common law and in equity for misrepresentation\n5—Interpretation\nIn this Part—\ncourt includes an arbitrator.\n6—Removal of certain bars to rescission\n\t(1)\tWhere a misrepresentation has been made by reason of which any party to a contract would, but for any one or more of the following considerations—\n\t(a)\tthat the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract; or\n\t(b)\tthat the contract has been performed; or\n\t(c)\tthat conveyances, transfers or other documents have been registered at any public registry office in pursuance of the contract,\nbe entitled to rescind the contract, that contracting party is entitled to rescind the contract despite that consideration or those considerations.\n\t(2)\tThis section does not invest a contracting party with a right to rescind a contract where, in equity, such a right would be barred by reason of the fact that a third party has in good faith and for valuable consideration acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the contract.\n\t(3)\tThis section does not affect any remedy available under the Land Agents Act 1994, Conveyancers Act 1994, Land Valuers Act 1994 or Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994.\n7—Damages for misrepresentation\n\t(1)\tWhere a contracting party is induced to enter into a contract by a misrepresentation made—\n\t(a)\tby another party to the contract; or\n\t(b)\tby a person acting for, or on behalf of, another party to the contract; or\n\t(c)\tby a person who receives any direct or indirect consideration or material advantage as a result of the formation of the contract,\nand any person (whether or not he or she is the person by whom the misrepresentation was made) would, if the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently, be liable for damages in tort to the contracting party subjected to the misrepresentation in respect of loss suffered by him or her as a result of the formation of the contract, that person is, subject to subsection (2), so liable to that contracting party, in all respects as if the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently and were actionable in tort.\n\t(2)\tIt is a defence to an action under subsection (1)—\n\t(a)\tthat the person by whom the representation was made had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that the representation was true; or\n\t(b)\tthat the defendant was not the person by whom the representation was made and did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the representation had been made, or that it was untrue.\n\t(3)\tWhere in any proceedings before a court, it is proved that a party to a contract has rescinded, or is entitled to rescind, the contract on the ground of misrepresentation, the court after consideration of the consequences of rescission, and the consequences of a declaration under this section, in the circumstances of the case, may, if it considers it just and equitable to do so, declare the contract to be subsisting and award such damages as it considers fair and reasonable in view of the misrepresentation.\n\t(4)\tA declaration under subsection (3) has effect according to its terms and is a bar to rescission.\n\t(5)\tWhere a contract has been rescinded but is subsequently declared to be subsisting under subsection (3), the respective rights and liabilities of the contracting parties will be determined in all respects as if the contract had never been rescinded.\n\t(6)\tIn assessing any damages under this section, a court must take into consideration any award of damages under any other provision of this section, or of damages or compensation under any other law, and in assessing damages or compensation in any proceedings under any other law relating to a contract, a court must take into consideration any award of damages under this section.\n8—Exclusion clauses\nIf any contract contains a provision that would, but for this section, exclude or restrict—\n\t(a)\tany liability to which a party to a contract may be subject by reason of any misrepresentation made by that party before the contract was made; or\n\t(b)\tany remedy available to another party to the contract by reason of such a misrepresentation,\nthat provision has no effect except to the extent (if any) to which, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, the court may allow reliance on it as being fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.\n9—Application of Part\nThis Part does not apply in relation to a misrepresentation, or a contract, made before the commencement of this Act.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tPlease note—References in the legislation to other legislation or instruments or to titles of bodies or offices are not automatically updated as part of the program for the revision and publication of legislation and therefore may be obsolete.\n\t•\tEarlier versions of this Act (historical versions) are listed at the end of the legislative history.\n\t•\tFor further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.\nPrincipal Act and amendments\nNew entries appear in bold.\nYear\nNo\nTitle\nAssent\nCommencement\n1972\n46\nMisrepresentation Act 1972\n20.4.1972\n18.5.1972 (Gazette 18.5.1972 p1927)\n1987\n43\nStatutes Amendment (Fair Trading) Act 1987\n30.4.1987\ns 18—26.10.1987 (Gazette 24.9.1987 p940)\n1995\n62\nMisrepresentation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 1995\n10.8.1995\n26.9.1996 (Gazette 26.9.1996 p1209)\n2011\n36\nStatutes Amendment (Directors' Liability) Act 2011\n22.9.2011\nPt 12 (s 14)—1.1.2012 (Gazette 15.12.2011 p4988)\nProvisions amended since 3 February 1976\n\t•\tLegislative history prior to 3 February 1976 appears in marginal notes and footnotes included in the consolidation of this Act contained in Volume 7 of The Public General Acts of South Australia 1837-1975 at page 368.\nNew entries appear in bold.\nEntries that relate to provisions that have been deleted appear in italics.\nProvision\nHow varied\nCommencement\nLong title\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nPt 1\n\n\nss 2 and 3\ndeleted by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nPt 2\n\n\ns 4\n\n\ns 4(1)\namended by 62/1995 ss 3(a), (b), 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\ns 4(2) and (3)\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\ns 4(5)\namended by 62/1995 ss 3(c), (d), 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\n\ndeleted by 36/2011 s 14\n1.1.2012\ns 4(7)\ndeleted by 43/1987 s 18\n26.10.1987\ns 4(8)\ndeleted by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\ns 4(9) and (10)\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nPt 3\n\n\ns 6\n\n\ns 6(1)\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\ns 6(3)\namended by 62/1995 s 4\n26.9.1996\ns 7\n\n\ns 7(1), (2), (4)—(6)\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nss 8 and 9\namended by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nPt 4\ndeleted by 62/1995 s 5 (Sch)\n26.9.1996\nHistorical versions\nReprint No 1—1.10.1991\n\nReprint No 2—26.9.1996\n\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The 1972 Act's original intent was to introduce criminal sanctions for business misrepresentations and broaden common-law and equitable remedies for victims. The 1995 amendments deleted ss 2–3 and Part 4, removed spent transitional provisions, amended the long title, and updated cross-references to contemporary fair-trading and land-sale statutes. These alterations narrowed procedural and administrative elements while sharpening the Act's focus on active commercial misrepresentations and its interplay with modern consumer-protection regimes, thereby evolving its practical scope."},"complexity_factors":["Hybrid criminal and civil structure requiring navigation of both offence provisions and equitable remedies","Evidentiary presumptions and reversed burdens in s 4(2) and multiple layered defences in s 4(3)","Heavy reliance on undefined common-law and equitable concepts (e.g. rescission bars, third-party rights) without full codification","Cross-references to at least four other statutes (Land Agents Act 1994, Conveyancers Act 1994, Land Valuers Act 1994, Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994)","Legislative history showing deletions (ss 2, 3, 4(5), 4(7), 4(8), Part 4) and amendments that alter scope and application"],"plain_english_summary":"**The Misrepresentation Act 1972 (SA)** does two main things. First, it creates a criminal offence for anyone running a trade or business (or their staff or authorised agents) who makes a false statement to trick someone into signing a contract or handing over money or property (s 4). Penalties reach $100,000 for companies and $20,000 for individuals. Second, it expands the civil remedies that people misled by false statements can use. This includes making it easier to cancel (rescind) a contract even if the false statement became part of the deal, the contract was completed, or documents were registered (s 6). It also allows claims for damages as if the false statement had been made fraudulently, even if it was not (s 7), and it limits the effectiveness of contract clauses that try to exclude liability for misrepresentations (s 8).\n\nThe law affects businesses engaging in commercial transactions across South Australia, their employees and agents, and any individuals or companies who suffer loss after relying on false statements. It matters because it deters dishonest sales practices in everyday business deals while giving victims clearer and stronger ways to get out of bad contracts or receive compensation without having to prove deliberate fraud."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The text records a history of amendments that altered the Act's scope and many specific provisions. Notable changes shown in the legislative history include amendments to s4(1), (2) and (3) (amended by Misrepresentation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 1995, No 62/1995); deletions of certain subsections (for example s4(5) deleted by Statutes Amendment (Directors' Liability) Act 2011; s4(7) deleted 1987); amendments to Part 3 provisions (s6(1) and s6(3) amended 1995; s7(1),(2),(4)–(6) amended 1995; ss8 and 9 amended 1995); and deletion of an entire Part 4 (deleted 1996) (see Legislative history section and \"Provisions amended since\" entries). These recorded amendments indicate the Act’s content and operational detail have been modified since original enactment."},"complexity_factors":["Dual regime: criminal sanctions (Part 2, s4) and expanded civil remedies (Part 3, s6–s8) operating in parallel","Statutory evidential presumption about inducement and benefit that shifts evidential burdens (s4(2))","Defences that depend on subjective reasonable belief and objective precautions, with differing tests for representors and non-representors (s4(3); s7(2))","Judicial discretion to refuse rescission and instead declare contract subsisting with damages, creating fact-sensitive remedial outcomes (s7(3)–(5))","Interaction and required coordination with other statutes and awards (s6(3); s7(6))","Attorney-General consent requirement for prosecution concentrates enforcement discretion and affects practical operation (s4(9)–(10))","Treatment of third-party bona fide purchasers as an exception to rescission creates balancing of competing interests (s6(2))","Inclusion of arbitrators within \"court\" broadens dispute-resolution fora and affects procedural routes (s5)"],"plain_english_summary":"The law creates a criminal offence for making materially false representations in trade to induce contracts, payments or transfers, with higher fines for corporations, evidential presumptions of inducement, specified defences, and Attorney‑General consent for prosecutions. \n\nIt also expands civil remedies: easier rescission (subject to good‑faith third‑party exceptions), damages treated as if the misrepresentation were fraudulent, limits on exclusion clauses, and judicial/arbitral discretion to substitute damages for rescission — increasing compliance burdens for businesses and protection for misled parties."},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Unable to assess whether the scope of the Act changed from its original intent, as no legislative text was provided. The webpage returned a 404 error, meaning the content was inaccessible."},"complexity_factors":["No actual legislative text was available for analysis — only a broken webpage was returned","Complexity score is minimal and provisional, based solely on general knowledge of the Act rather than its text","A proper complexity assessment would require review of the Act's actual provisions, definitions, and exceptions"],"plain_english_summary":"**No legislation content was retrievable for analysis.**\n\nThe link provided returned a **404 Page Not Found** error from the South Australian legislation website. This means the actual text of the *Misrepresentation Act 1972* (SA) was not available in the content provided — only a broken webpage was returned.\n\n**What is generally known about this Act:**\nThe *Misrepresentation Act 1972* (SA) is a South Australian law that deals with situations where someone is misled into entering a contract because of a **false statement of fact (a \"misrepresentation\")** made by the other party. It gives people legal remedies — such as the right to exit the contract or claim compensation — even where the false statement was made innocently (i.e., the person making it genuinely believed it was true). Before this Act, innocent misrepresentation offered very limited legal recourse.\n\n**Who does it affect?**\n- Anyone entering into a contract in South Australia — including buying property, goods, or services\n- Businesses and consumers who rely on statements made during negotiations\n- It is particularly relevant in **property transactions**, commercial deals, and insurance contracts\n\n**Why does it matter?**\nIt provides important protections against being deceived into a bad deal, even when the deception was unintentional. However, a full and accurate analysis cannot be provided without access to the actual legislative text."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972","history":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972/history","analysis":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/misrepresentation-act-1972/documents"}}