Depending on how a court has entered into negotiations, a representation could become a contractual clause, as well as a clause justifying the right of withdrawal. A misrepresentation, which is a clause, gives the wrong people the right to a simple violation of the right to contract, with “waiting damages” for the loss of potential gains (subject to remoteness and the obligation to mitigate). If the misrepresentation is not a clause, there may be damage, but only “damage to trust” for the damage suffered. Until 1963, the general rule was that only harm was available for fraud (i.e., deliberate or reckless misrepresentation). In case of fraud, damages are available for all losses resulting directly from the misrepres ccaaed presentation.  However, in its tenth report, the Committee on Legal Reform recommended that damages be also available for negligent misrepresentation.  This led to the development of the 1967 Warning Act and shortly before the legislation was passed, the House of Lords also ruled in Hedley Byrne- Co Ltd against Heller-Partners Ltd that there would be a new complaint of negligent misrepresentation in the common law. While Hedley Byrne remains an important case for an independent illegal act, paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the AD in 1967 was immediately more generous than the common law. It allows damages if the plaintiff shows that a defendant made a false presentation, and then the defendant cannot prove that she had reasonable reasons to explain and honestly believed that it was true. Thus, while the common law would impose the burden of proof on a plaintiff to show false negligent testimony to a defendant, MA 1967 s 2 (1) entrusts the burden of proof to the defendant. The amount of damages is also more generous under the act than in the common law, because, just as the report on the reform of the law was drafted, the House of Lords introduced a limit on the amount of damages caused by negligence to reasonably foreseeable losses.
 However, Section 2 (1 of MA 1967) was established indicating that the same damages were available as for fraud. Thus, in Royscot Trust Ltd/Rogerson, the Court of Appeal held that even if a representation was negligent and not negligent, the amount of damages was the same as for fraud.