▁intended ▁to ▁give ▁a ▁mis leading ▁impression ▁and ▁was ▁thereby ▁an ▁" un true ▁statement ", ▁allowing ▁invest ors ▁to ▁sue . ▁K yl s ant ' s ▁statement ▁was ▁de emed ▁fra ud ul ent ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁the ▁" 3 - part ▁test ▁in ▁Der ry ▁v ▁Pe ek ▁" ▁which ▁held ▁that ▁a ▁person ▁who ▁( i ) ▁intention ally ▁told ▁lies , ▁or ▁( ii ) ▁was ▁reck less ▁with ▁the ▁truth , ▁or ▁( iii ) ▁did ▁not ▁believe ▁in ▁what ▁he ▁was ▁saying , ▁was ▁li able ▁in ▁fra ud ul ent ▁mis re presentation . ▁▁ ▁In ▁the ▁later ▁case ▁of ▁Do yle ▁v ▁Ol by , ▁Lord ▁Den ning ▁ ▁MR ▁declared ▁that ▁a ▁person ▁ ▁making ▁a ▁fra ud ul ent ▁mis re presentation ▁was ▁li able ▁in ▁dam ages ▁for ▁" all ▁direct ▁consequences ", ▁whether ▁loss ▁was ▁for ese e able ▁or ▁not ; ▁whereas ▁the ▁general ▁rule ▁for ▁the ▁award ▁of ▁dam ages ▁in ▁contract ▁is ▁that ▁the ▁loss ▁caused ▁by ▁the ▁bre ach ▁must ▁be ▁for ese e able ▁either ▁to ▁the ▁parties ▁or ▁to ▁the ▁" reason able ▁man ", ▁as ▁in ▁Had ley ▁v ▁B ax end ale . ▁ ▁Notes ▁UK ▁C PI ▁infl ation ▁numbers ▁based ▁on ▁data ▁available ▁from ▁Me as uring ▁W orth : ▁UK ▁C PI ▁ ▁References ▁ ▁Bibli ography ▁ ▁Category : 1 9 3 1 ▁in ▁England ▁Category : English ▁criminal ▁case ▁law ▁Category : Account ing ▁sc and