Prior to the Act, the common law position was that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent.

[commencement: October 1, 2014]Subsection (4) does not prevent a debtor from bringing a claim under section 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 against a creditor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement in a case where, but for subsection (4), the debtor would have a claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation (and, where section 75 of that Act would otherwise apply, it accordingly applies as if the debtor had a claim against the supplier).” [commencement: October 1, 2014] Avoidance of provision excluding liability for misrepresentation.

Although short and apparently succinct, the 1967 Act is widely regarded as being confusing and poorly drafted.

[4][5] Alan Brenner at the University College London has observed that the Act was a piece of law reform “aimed at ensuring justice and fairness for those that bought goods and services and was grounded in the socio-economic changes in post-war Britain”.

He has further suggested that the Act has “embedded itself in the societal consciousness” of the United Kingdom which is the reason why it has remained relatively unchanged for over 50 years.