Misrepresentation
60.AMI’s claim for misrepresentation was advanced under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967:“Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.”61.I have no doubt that AMI entered into the Satellite Assignment after Mr Dorset’s misrepresentation that Satellite owned the copyright in Alright and, so far as that song was concerned, in reliance on the misrepresentation. As a result, AMI believed itself to be the recipient of 25% of the copyright in Alright62.AMI’s claim against Mr Dorset for misrepresentation under s.2(1) of the 1967 Act succeeds.63.The same does not apply in relation to the misrepresentation alleged to have taken place before the agreement between AMI and Sony/ATV, or as appears to have been the case, between AMI and SME. That agreement long pre-dated Mr Dorset’s representations. In any event, Mr Dorset was not a party to the agreement with SME.