Misrepresentation — personal assurance — counter-claim by defendant for loss of franchise — costs — Contractual Remedies Act 1979, ss 6 and 9. The Court found that the plaintiff had been induced into a franchise contract as a result of misrepresentation by the defendant. The plaintiff relied on the financial representations made by the defendant, and the personal assurance by him that if any of the representations or information were false, then the plaintiff would be personally refunded in full by the defendant. The defendant counter-claimed for the loss of the franchise from the franchisor, the Court considered evidence that the company was not struck off until over two years after the plaintiff exited the company, and the fact that the defendant did not advance the counter-claim, and the counter-claim was struck out. The plaintiff was found to have been induced into the contract as a result of misrepresentation, and costs were awarded. Judgment Date: 22 February 2017.