(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 19(1) - Innocent Misrepresentation - The court clarified that a representee may sue for rescission and restitution if induced by innocent misrepresentation; however, this remedy is unavailable when a contract for land is executed. (Paras 15, 32)

(B) Misrepresentation - Definition and Implications - Innocent misrepresentation requires the misrepresentor to genuinely believe in the truth of their statements. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was the developer of a condominium project, and the respondents, who purchased an apartment, claimed misrepresentation regarding beach accessibility. They sought to rescind the contract after discovering the true state of the property. (Paras 2-3, 6-7)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found no actionable misrepresentation and ruled that the completed contract could not be rescinded based on innocent misrepresentation. The appellate court's decision to allow rescission was overturned. (Paras 9, 33)

Issues: The main issues included whether the representations amounted to misrepresentation and the applicability of rescission for executed contracts. (Paras 8, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that innocent misrepresentation cannot justify the rescission of an executed contract, reinforcing the need for a claim of fraud to allow such action. (Paras 30-32)

Result: Appeal allowed; the trial court's decision reinstated.