INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Misrepresentation in Online Sales Transactions:AComparative Study of  
Malaysian and UK Legal Frameworks  
Iyllyana Che Rosli1*, Fatin Zulaikha Zulkifli1, Divyaloshini Sures Rao1, Norhasliza Ghapa1 and  
Mohamad Nurul Hafiz Ab Latif2  
1Law Department, Faculty of Law and International Relations, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin  
(UniSZA), Gong Badak Campus, 21300, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia  
2Department of Da’wah and Islamic Civilization, Faculty of Islamic Contemporary Studies, Universiti  
Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Gong Badak Campus, 21300, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia.  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200002  
Received: 06 December 2025; Accepted: 13 December 2025; Published: 30 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The growth of e-commerce has amplified the legal importance of misrepresentation in online sales transactions,  
given that contractual consent is increasingly derived through digital means. The lack of physical inspection,  
together with the lack of information on the applicable laws, raises concerns regarding the adequacy of existing  
legal framework to regulate misleading pre-contractual statements within the digital marketplace. This article  
explores how misrepresentation in online sales transactions is treated under both Malaysian and UK law.  
Adopting a doctrinal and comparative methodology, this paper analyses statutory provisions and established  
principles governing misrepresentation in online sales across both jurisdictions. The analysis reveals that while  
both legal systems acknowledge misrepresentation as a factor that can invalidate contractual consent, both  
coutries’ approaches differ significantly in terms of legal structure, categorisation and remedies applicable to the  
parties who consent was so caused. The UK framework which supported by the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and  
enhanced by consumer protection legislations reflects a more structured response to misrepresentation in online  
sales. Utilising the findings, this article offers recommendations to enhance Malaysian legal framework on  
misrepresentation in online sales transactions.  
Keywords: Misrepresentation; Online sales transactions; Commercial law; Consumer protection; E-commerce  
INTRODUCTION  
The rapid expansion of e-commerce has fundamentally transformed the formation and performance of contracts,  
particularly in consumer transactions conducted through online platforms (Pregoner et al., 2020; Seah et al.,  
2022). In digital marketplaces, the agreement between buyers and sellers often relies on product descriptions,  
images, reviews, and promotional statements rather than physical interactions or inspections. This change has  
increased the importance of the concept of misrepresentation that historically focused on false statements that  
persuade parties to enter into contracts. As a result, we face complicated challenges in determining whether  
current legal frameworks are sufficient to address the issues on misrepresentation in online sales transactions.  
Misrepresentation plays a crucial role in contract law, as it serves as a significant factor that can invalidate  
consent and challenge the integrity of contractual commitments (Nik Mahmod et al., 2017). Under the common  
law, a crucial distinction exists among fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation. Each type carries  
its own implications for the validity of contracts and the potential remedies available to affected parties.  
Understanding these differences is essential for resolving contractual disputes and seeking appropriate legal  
redress in various situations (Mohanty & Rai, 2022). In today's digital landscape, where consumers frequently  
rely solely on the online representations provided by sellers digitally, it is essential to reconsider how we apply  
conventional misrepresentation principles. Misrepresentation in online sales presents a significant challenge in  
Page 14  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
the digital marketplace, as it can undermine consumer trust and give rise to adverse economic consequences  
(Triasih et al., 2019).  
A comparative examination of the legal frameworks in Malaysia and the United Kingdom (UK) offers a  
compelling perspective on the regulation of misrepresentation in online sales transactions. Both jurisdictions,  
grounded in common law traditions, recognise misrepresentation as a factor capable of vitiating contractual  
consent. However, their regulatory approaches differ markedly. The UK has developed a more structured  
statutory framework, centred on the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and supplemented by a range of consumer  
protection laws, which together provide clearer categorisation of misrepresentation and a broader range of  
remedies applicable to online transactions. By contrast, Malaysia regulates misrepresentation through a  
combination of general contract law and consumer protection statutes, resulting in a more fragmented legal  
framework. Despite the growing importance of online sales, existing legal scholarship has tended to focus on  
misrepresentation within traditional contractual settings or to examine it more broadly through the lens of  
consumer protection, often overlooking its specific implications in the context of digital transactions. This article  
seeks to address this gap by undertaking a detailed doctrinal and comparative analysis of the regulation of  
misrepresentation in online sales under Malaysian and UK law. The article pursues two main objectives. First,  
it provides a comprehensive examination of the legal frameworks governing misrepresentation in online sales  
transactions in both jurisdictions, with particular attention to statutory structures, legal classification, and  
available remedies. Second, it draws on comparative insights to propose ways in which the Malaysian legal  
framework may be strengthened to better address misrepresentation in online sales. In doing so, the article  
contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions on misrepresentation and offers comparative perspectives that are  
particularly relevant to safeguarding contractual consent in the evolving landscape of digital commerce.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Misrepresentation, the element of Consent and Remedies under the Contract Law  
Misrepresentation plays a crucial role in law of contract, especially on safeguarding the contractual consent of  
the parties. Misrepresentation refers to false statements made by one party with the intent of persuading another  
to enter into a contract. These statements can be classified into three categories which are fraudulent, negligent,  
or innocent. Each type has significant implications for the validity of consent provided by the parties  
involved(Eggers, 2016). Under the common law, misrepresentation can be defined as a false statement of fact  
that leads a party to agree to a contract, undermining the voluntary nature of that agreement(Klass, 2025).  
Misrepresentation has a profound impact on the notion of informed consent within contractual relationships.  
When a party is misled, their consent lacks essential information, potentially rendering the contract voidable.  
The law reflects the importance of voluntary participation and clear understanding of the contractual terms.  
Misrepresentation disrupts this foundational principle by establishing a false premise for consent (Eggers, 2016).  
The law mandates that the falsehood must be material to the deceived party’s decision-making process; in other  
words, had the truth been revealed, the party likely would have refrained from entering the contract(Merkin &  
Saintier, 2019).  
The classification of fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation has long shaped how courts assess the  
liability and the remedies available for each classification (Rashid & Razak, 2023). The contract law provides  
different remedy for different classification of misrepresentation in contract law. First, rescission which serves  
as a primary remedy for all types of misrepresentation, whether fraudulent, negligent, or innocent(Andrews,  
2016). By rescinding the contract, the law aims to restore the parties to their original positions prior to the  
agreement(Capper, 2010). In addition, in instances of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, the aggrieved  
party may be entitled to also seek damages that compensate for any losses suffered due to the misinformation  
(West & Lewis Jr., 2009).  
Misrepresentation in Online Sales Transactions  
The growth of e-commerce has brought more attention to legal questions about digital agreements, especially  
how they affect consumer rights and traditional contract laws. When it comes to online sales, misrepresentation  
Page 15  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
can take various forms, such as misleading product descriptions, fraudulent reviews, or deceptive advertising  
tactics (Chrissanthis, 2016; Pu et al., 2022). On digital platforms, consumers often rely significantly on  
representations such as product descriptions, images, and automated disclosures, all without the benefit of direct  
and face to face interaction with the products or sellers. This reliance intensifies the importance of pre-  
contractual representations and increases the risk that misrepresentation may unduly influence a consumer's  
consent to contract. These misrepresentations may arise during the negotiation phase of online sales contracts,  
for instance where untrue statements may be made to induce another party to enter into such agreement.  
Online marketplaces serve a fundamental role in reducing misrepresentation during digital transactions. These  
platforms are seen as middlemen responsible for verifying product accuracy and standards (Vallejo & Ortega,  
2025). Notably, European Union regulations indicate that these platforms can be held liable for misleading  
representations if they fail to uphold their obligations on transparency. As such, e-commerce platforms are  
encouraged to adopt policies aimed at discouraging misrepresentation. The policies may include implementing  
stricter return policies or imposing penalties on sellers engaged in deceptive practices (Vallejo & Ortega, 2025).  
By taking a proactive stance, these platforms can significantly mitigate the risks associated with online sales.  
The growing cases involving online consumers reflects the necessity for stronger consumer protection in the  
digital marketplace(de Almeida Leite & Ramos Leite, 2025). Courts are increasingly recognising the  
responsibilities of online platforms in safeguarding against misleading practices by third-party sellers. This  
marks a move toward clearer responsibility and transparency within e-commerce.  
Legal Framework on Misrepresentation in Online Transactions in Malaysia  
Misrepresentation in Malaysia falls within the broader framework of law of contract and consumer protection  
law. The Contracts Act 1950 is the primary legislation governing misrepresentation in Malaysia (Nwobodo &  
Weissmann, 2023). Section 18 delineates the definitions and implications of misrepresentation, encompassing  
the categories of innocent, negligent, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The act facilitates the rescission of  
contracts induced by misrepresentation (Jawahitha & Mazahir, 2005).  
The Consumer Protection Act 1999 complements these laws by providing consumers with greater rights and  
avenues for redress when they fall victim to misleading practices in online transactions. This Act aims to ensure  
that consumers can make informed decisions and that their interests are protected in e-commerce transactions.  
It provides a framework for addressing various consumer rights issues, including those arising from  
misrepresentation(Zeno, 2022). This Electronic Commerce Act 2006 supports the formation and validity of  
electronic contracts, ensuring that digital transactions are legally recognised. While it does not specifically  
address misrepresentation, it underpins the legal framework for e-commerce transactions (Mohamad et al.,  
2025). Another relevant legislation would be the Sale of Goods Act 1957 which includes provisions that can be  
applied to e-commerce transactions, particularly concerning the sale of goods. It addresses issues related to the  
quality and description of goods, which can be relevant in cases of misrepresentation(Mohamad et al., 2025).  
The dispersion of relevant provisions across multiple statutes has led scholars to describe the Malaysian legal  
framework as fragmented, particularly in its application to online sales transactions. Despite the presence of  
these laws, there are challenges in their adequacy and enforcement (Alibeigi & Munir, 2016). The existing legal  
framework may not fully address the complexities of modern e-commerce, and there are calls for updates and  
amendments to better protect consumers(Gan, 2010). There is a need for a more comprehensive and updated  
legal framework that aligns with international standards and addresses the specific challenges of e-commerce,  
including misrepresentation (Idem et al., 2024; Nuruddeen & Yusof, 2021).  
Legal Framework on Misrepresentation in Online Transactions in United Kingdom  
The primary legal framework governing misrepresentation in the UK is established by the Misrepresentation  
Act of 1967. This legislation sets out the parameters under which fraudulent misrepresentation is addressed,  
drawing from English common law principles articulated in the Tort of Deceit that allows individuals to seek  
damages when deceit can be demonstrated. Furthermore, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 also serves to regulate  
negligent and innocent misrepresentations, offering remedies for occurrences of misrepresentation that do not  
Page 16  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
involve fraud(Mohanty & Rai, 2022). Originally conceived to tackle false representations during real-time  
interactions, this legislation has since been adapted to address challenges arising from online sale transactions.  
Supplementing the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 (CRA 2015) introduces  
additional protections for consumers engaged in online transactions. This comprehensive legislation consolidates  
the fundamental rights of consumers in the UK, encompassing contracts for goods, services, and digital content,  
while also addressing unfair terms within consumer contracts(Giliker, 2017). The relevance of the CRA 2015 is  
particularly pronounced in the realm of online sales, where misrepresentation can present notable issues. The  
Act includes crucial provisions that empower consumers to withdraw from contracts within a defined period, a  
measure that is especially pertinent in the context of online transactions that carry a heightened risk of  
misrepresentation (Luzak, 2014).  
Additionally, the CRA 2015 seeks to ensure that the terms of consumer contracts are fair and transparent, thereby  
offering protection against deceptive practices (Giliker, 2017). Misrepresentation in online sales can manifest in  
various forms, such as fraudulent reviews, misleading advertising, and inaccurate product descriptions  
(Khubalkar & Sharma, 2022; Pu et al., 2022). These practices can significantly impact consumer trust and  
decision-making (Xu et al., 2025). Consumers who fall victim to misrepresentation in online sales can seek  
redress through various legal channels. The CRA 2015 provides a framework for consumers to challenge unfair  
practices and seek compensation (Othman et al., 2017). The UK has strong consumer protection laws that address  
unfair competition and misrepresentation. The focus is on preventing consumer confusion and protecting the  
claimant’s goodwill (Davis, 2019). Another important regulatory instrument pertinent to misrepresentation in  
online sales transactions is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These regulations  
prohibit misleading actions and omissions in commercial practices and are designed to enforce the EU Unfair  
Commercial Practices Directive. Specifically, they outlaw unfair commercial practices that may deceive  
consumers (Edwards, 2005).  
METHODOLOGY  
This article adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal research methodology to examine the legal framework of  
misrepresentation in online sales transactions under Malaysian and UK law. The study is qualitative in nature  
and centres on the analysis of legal norms, statutory frameworks, and judicial reasoning governing pre-  
contractual representations in the context of digital commerce.  
The doctrinal approach is employed as the primary method of inquiry, focusing on the identification,  
interpretation, and application of legal rules relating to misrepresentation and consumer protection (Nyathi,  
2023). This method enables a close examination of primary legal sources, including statutes, subsidiary  
legislation, and reported judicial decisions. In the Malaysian context, the analysis focuses on the Contracts Act  
1950, the Consumer Protection Act 1999, and relevant electronic commerce regulations governing online  
transactions. In the UK context, particular attention is given to the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and its interaction  
with consumer legislation, notably the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Through this doctrinal analysis, the study  
examines how misrepresentation is defined, classified, and the prescribed remedies within each legal framework,  
with specific attention to its operation in online sales transactions.  
Subsequently, the comparative method is adopted to identify similarities and differences between the Malaysian  
and UK legal frameworks (Sinani & Mehmeti, 2025). Rather than engaging in abstract comparison of legal rules,  
the analysis focuses on how each jurisdiction responds to comparable issues arising from online sales  
transactions, including information asymmetry, reliance on digital representations, and the availability of  
remedies (Billis, 2017). The UK is selected as a comparative jurisdiction due to its shared common law heritage  
with Malaysia and its more developed statutory approach to misrepresentation. Secondary sources, including  
academic literature, law reform materials, and policy-oriented legal commentary, are used to contextualise the  
primary analysis and support the comparative assessment. The scope of the study is confined to business-to-  
consumer online sales transactions and excludes criminal fraud, tortious misrepresentation unrelated to  
contractual relationships, and empirical consumer behaviour analysis. This methodological approach facilitates  
a structured evaluation of the respective legal frameworks and provides a sound basis for the comparative  
insights and recommendations advanced in this article.  
Page 17  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
FINDINGS  
This section sets out the findings of the doctrinal and comparative analysis examining how misrepresentation in  
online sales transactions is regulated under Malaysian and UK law. The analysis focuses on the statutory  
frameworks governing misrepresentation, classification of misrepresentation, and the remedies available for pre-  
contractual misrepresentation in the context of digital commerce.  
Legal Framework Legal Framework Governing Misrepresentation in Malaysia  
The findings indicate that misrepresentation in Malaysian online sales transactions is regulated through a  
fragmented legal framework rather than a single, consolidated statutory regime. The Contracts Act 1950 govern  
the law on misrepresentation in Malaysia by recognising misrepresentation as a factor that renders contracts  
voidable when consent is obtained through false representation. However, the Act does not distinguish between  
different types of misrepresentation, nor does it prescribe differentiated remedies corresponding to the nature or  
seriousness of the misrepresentation (Nik Mahmod et al., 2017). Although the Contracts Act 1950 is modelled  
on the Indian Contract Act 1872 and influenced by English common law, it does not incorporate the detailed  
classifications of misrepresentation stipulated in those jurisdictions. In England, for example, fraudulent  
misrepresentation continues to be governed by common law principles, while negligent and innocent  
misrepresentation are addressed under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (Mohanty & Rai, 2022).  
Consumer protection legislation, in particular the Consumer Protection Act 1999 and subsidiary regulations  
governing electronic trade, supplements general contract law by addressing misleading and deceptive conduct  
in consumer transactions. These provisions introduce safety measures including disclosure obligations and rights  
to refund or replacement. However, they operate outside the conceptual framework of misrepresentation under  
contract law. As a result, misrepresentation in online sales transactions is regulated indirectly through  
overlapping statutory instruments with differing legal objectives. The findings further suggest that this  
fragmented regulatory approach generates uncertainty, especially in cases involving negligent or innocent  
misrepresentation. In the absence of clear statutory guidance on classification and remedies, legal outcomes  
remain heavily dependent on judicial interpretation and general contract principles, thereby limiting  
predictability and consistency in the resolution of online sales disputes.  
The findings indicate that Malaysia has taken a significant regulatory step towards addressing misrepresentation  
in online sales through the introduction of the Consumer Protection (Electronic Trade Transaction) Regulations  
2024. These Regulations impose detailed pre-contractual disclosure obligations on online marketplace suppliers,  
including requirements to provide accurate information on the identity of sellers, product characteristics, pricing,  
delivery timelines, and applicable terms and conditions. Importantly, the Regulations expressly prohibit the  
disclosure of information that is false or misleading and impose compliance obligations on both online  
marketplace suppliers and platform operators. While these measures strengthen transparency and reduce the risk  
of misleading representations in electronic commerce, they operate primarily as regulatory safeguards rather  
than as an integrated extension of contractual misrepresentation under the Contracts Act 1950.  
Legal Framework Governing Misrepresentation in the United Kingdom  
The UK legal framework reflects a more structured and coherent approach to regulating misrepresentation in  
online sales transactions. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides express statutory recognition of different  
forms of misrepresentation and establishes corresponding remedial consequences, including the availability of  
damages beyond cases of fraud. Rescission remains the primary remedy for all categories of misrepresentation  
which are fraudulent, negligent, and innocent. This allows the contract to be set aside where consent has been  
improperly obtained(Davies, 2016). In addition, section 2(2) of the Act confers discretion on the courts to award  
damages in lieu of rescission, provided that the right to rescind has not been lost.  
This framework is further reinforced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which expressly governs online and  
distance sales and addresses issues such as misdescription, conformity of goods, and digital content (Giliker,  
2017). Under this Act, consumers are afforded a range of remedies, including the right to reject non-conforming  
goods and to withdraw from contracts within a statutory cooling-off period. These consumer-specific protections  
Page 18  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
operate alongside, rather than independently of, misrepresentation law. The findings indicate similar integration  
as the position in Malaysia pertaining to the interaction between misrepresentation doctrine and consumer  
protection legislation.  
Additionally, online and distance selling is primarily regulated by the Consumer Contracts (Information,  
Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. These instruments form part of the consumer protection  
framework governing online transactions and operate alongside misrepresentation law to address misleading  
conduct in digital commerce. The main feature of this regulatory framework is the statutory right of withdrawal,  
which allows consumers to cancel a contract within 14 days of receiving the goods without providing any reason.  
This right applies to online and distance sales and functions as an additional safeguard where contractual consent  
may have been influenced by inaccurate or misleading representations (Luzak, 2014). The Regulations also  
impose comprehensive pre-contractual information obligations on traders, requiring that information provided  
to consumers be accurate, clear, and not misleading. In relation to misrepresentation, the Regulations reinforce  
the requirement that marketing and sales practices in online transactions must not contain false or deceptive  
statements. Failure to comply with these obligations may give rise to enforcement action and consumer remedies  
under the broader consumer protection regime (Davis, 2019). Together with the Consumer Rights Act 2015,  
these measures contribute to a regulatory framework that expressly accommodates the risks of misrepresentation  
in online sales transactions.  
Comparative Analysis on Legal Frameworks in Malaysia and UK  
For ease of comparison, the principal features of the Malaysian and UK legal frameworks governing  
misrepresentation in online sales transactions are summarised in Table 1. This overview is followed by a  
comparative discussion of the findings, highlighting main areas of convergence and divergence between the two  
jurisdictions.  
Table 1: Main Differences of Legal Framework on Misrepresentation in Online Transactions in Malaysia and  
United Kingdom  
Differences / Countries  
Core legal sources  
Malaysia  
UK  
Contracts Act 1950; Consumer  
Protection Act 1999; Consumer  
Protection (Electronic Trade  
Transaction) Regulations 2024  
Misrepresentation Act 1967; Consumer  
Rights Act 2015; Consumer Contracts  
(Information, Cancellation and  
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013  
Nature of legal framework  
Fragmented and general  
No express classification  
Structured and integrated  
Statutory classification of  
misrepresentation  
Express categorisation (fraudulent,  
negligent, innocent)  
Application to online sales  
Effect on contract  
Indirect and implicit  
Contract voidable  
Expressly applicable  
Contract voidable  
Availability of damages  
Generally limited to fraud  
Available for negligent and innocent  
misrepresentation  
Burden of proof  
No provision  
Shifted to representor  
Consumer-specific remedies  
Refund or replacement  
Right to reject, refund, repair,  
replacement  
Cooling-off period  
No provision  
Statutory cooling-off period  
Sources: Contracts Act 1950, Consumer Protection Act 1999, Misrepresentation Act 1967 and Consumer Rights  
Act 2015  
Page 19  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
The comparative analysis reveals that, while both Malaysia and the UK recognise misrepresentation as a ground  
capable of vitiating contractual consent, the structure and operation of their legal frameworks differ in certain  
areas, particularly in relation to online sales transactions.  
In Malaysia, misrepresentation is regulated through a general and fragmented legal framework. The framework  
focusses on the Contracts Act 1950 and supplemented by consumer protection legislation. The Contracts Act  
1950 recognises misrepresentation as rendering a contract voidable where consent is obtained through false  
representation. However, the Act does not distinguish between different categories of misrepresentation, nor  
does it provide remedies calibrated to the nature or seriousness of the misleading conduct. Although the Act was  
modelled on the Indian Contract Act 1872 and influenced by English common law, it does not incorporate the  
more detailed statutory classifications found in those jurisdictions. Consequently, the legal treatment of  
misrepresentation in Malaysia remains broadly framed and heavily reliant on judicial interpretation. Consumer  
protection legislation, particularly the Consumer Protection Act 1999 and subsidiary electronic trade regulations,  
complements general contract law by addressing misleading and deceptive conduct in consumer transactions.  
These statutes set up framework for protection of consumer rights, such as disclosure obligations and introduces  
limited remedies in the form of refunds or replacements. Nonetheless, they operate largely as individual  
regulatory mechanism but not as an extension of misrepresentation under contract law. As a result,  
misrepresentation in online sales transactions is regulated indirectly through multiple legislations with distinct  
objectives, creating a fragmented legal framework.  
By contrast, the UK legal framework reflects a more structured and integrated approach. The stand-alone  
Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides express statutory recognition of fraudulent, negligent, and innocent  
misrepresentation. Further, it establishes corresponding remedial consequences, including the availability of  
damages beyond cases of fraud. Although rescission remains the primary remedy for all categories of  
misrepresentation, the Act grants courts discretion under section 2(2) to award damages in lieu of rescission  
where appropriate. This statutory design clarifies both classification and remedial outcomes, thereby enhancing  
legal certainty for the consumers. The UK framework is further reinforced by consumer legislation, most notably  
the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which expressly governs online and distance sales. This Act addresses issues of  
misdescription, conformity of goods, and digital content, and provides consumers with a broader range of  
remedies, including the right to reject goods, obtain refunds or replacements, and withdraw from contracts within  
a statutory cooling-off period. These consumer-specific protections operate alongside misrepresentation law,  
resulting in a regulatory framework that is more explicitly aligned with the practical realities of online commerce.  
Specifically in UK, online and distance selling is governed mainly by the Consumer Contracts (Information,  
Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which complement misrepresentation law in addressing  
misleading conduct in digital transactions. The framework provides consumers with a 14-day right of withdrawal  
and imposes pre-contractual information obligations requiring accuracy and non-misleading representations in  
online sales.  
Overall, the findings indicate that although both jurisdictions recognise misrepresentation as vitiating contractual  
consent, the UK regulates it through a clearer and more structured statutory framework. On the other hand,  
Malaysia relies on general contract and consumer protection laws that provide comparatively less legal clarity  
in online sales transactions.  
DISCUSSION  
The Adoption of a Specified Statute on Misrepresentation: Improving Legal Certainty  
One the main differences between the Malaysian and UK legal frameworks lies in the extent to which  
misrepresentation is stipulated through statute. In the UK, misrepresentation is governed by a dedicated  
legislative framework, the stand-alone Misrepresentation Act that specifically lay down laws on  
misrepresentation (Mohanty & Rai, 2022). Because of this structured approach, judges and contract participants  
gain practical direction - improving predictability when resolving e-commerce conflicts (Davies, 2016). By  
contrast, Malaysian law addresses misrepresentation primarily through general provisions under section 18 of  
the Contracts Act 1950, supplemented by the Consumer Protection Act 1999. While these provisions recognise  
misrepresentation as vitiating contractual consent, they lack precise directions on classification or remedies. This  
Page 20  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
limitation is particularly significant in the context of online sales, where disputes commonly arise from  
misleading digital representations. The absence of clear statutory laws increases reliance on judicial  
interpretation and may lead to inconsistent outcomes, thereby reducing legal predictability in digital commerce.  
Scope of Misrepresentation: Absence of Statutory Classification of Misrepresentation  
Another significant divergence concerns the scope and classification of misrepresentation. The UK legal  
framework draws clear distinctions between fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation. The  
distinction allows tailored legal outcomes for each classification. This classification also enables the law to  
respond proportionately to the varied forms of misleading conduct that occur in online transactions, where  
misinformation may arise without deliberate intent. In Malaysia, misrepresentation continues to be treated as a  
general concept without statutory categorisation. Nevertheless, judicial recognition of English classifications  
can be seen in Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar [2003] 3 MLJ 460, where the Malaysian court applied  
the similar classification under the UK law. Although such rulings exist, lack of clear legislative labels reduces  
uniformity in case results. When it comes to internet-based purchases, misrepresentation often result not from  
deceit but from carelessness, software errors, or partial information sharing.  
Integration Between Contract Law and Consumer Protection Legislation  
The degree of integration between contract law and consumer protection legislation further distinguishes the two  
jurisdictions. In the UK, misrepresentation law operates alongside consumer protection statutes, in particular the  
Consumer Rights Act 2015 which forms a coherent regulatory framework that explicitly accommodates online  
and distance sales (Hyde, 2019). Together, this combined approach offers buyers access to wider solutions than  
standard breach-of-contract options. In addition to remedies arising from misrepresentation such as rescission  
and damages, the UK regime affords consumers statutory rights to reject non-conforming goods, obtain refunds  
or replacements, and withdraw from contracts within a 14-day cooling-off period in distance and online sales.  
These remedies act both as preventative and corrective mechanisms, reducing the risk of consumer harm arising  
from misleading digital representations and allowing consumers to exit transactions where consent may have  
been compromised.  
In comparison, Malaysia’s consumer protection regime remains largely disconnected from contractual  
misrepresentation principles. Although the Consumer Protection Act 1999 addresses misleading and deceptive  
conduct in consumer transactions, it operates separately from misrepresentation under the Contracts Act 1950  
(Narayanasamy et al., 2017). From a comparative perspective, the Consumer Protection (Electronic Trade  
Transaction) Regulations 2024 reflect Malaysia’s increasing recognition of the risks of misrepresentation in  
online sales transactions and align, to some extent, with international trends emphasising pre-contractual  
transparency in digital commerce. However, the regulatory approach adopted remains largely preventive and  
compliance-based, focusing on disclosure duties, platform accountability, and enforcement mechanisms. Unlike  
the UK framework, the Regulations do not introduce a statutory cooling-off period or expressly link misleading  
disclosures to contractual remedies for misrepresentation. As a result, while the Regulations enhance consumer  
protection at the transactional level, they do not fully address the doctrinal consequences of misrepresentation  
on contractual consent.  
The absence of such a mechanism limits consumers’ ability to reconsider purchases influenced by inaccurate or  
incomplete digital representations. This lack of integration and remedial flexibility contributes to regulatory  
fragmentation and minimises protection to consumers in online sales transactions. Also, it constrains the  
effectiveness of existing remedies in addressing misrepresentation in online contexts. The UK experience  
demonstrates that integrating misrepresentation principles with distance-selling regulations and consumer-  
specific remedies can enhance both legal certainty and consumer confidence in digital markets. In this respect,  
the introduction of clearer remedial linkages such as withdrawal rights or cooling-off periods could strengthen  
Malaysia’s legal framework by providing more effective protection against misrepresentation in online sales  
transactions.  
Page 21  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
CONCLUSION  
This paper has examined the regulation of misrepresentation in online sales transactions under Malaysian and  
UK law, with particular focus on how each legal framework responds to misrepresentation in the digital  
marketplace. The analysis demonstrates that although both jurisdictions recognise misrepresentation as a ground  
capable of vitiating contractual consent, their legal responses differ in terms of structural clarity, remedial scope,  
and protection to the online consumers. The comparative findings indicate that the UK’s more structured and  
integrated framework provides clearer guidance on the classification of misrepresentation and the availability of  
remedies, particularly through the interaction between misrepresentation law and consumer protection  
legislation governing online and distance sales. In contrast, Malaysia’s reliance on general contract principles,  
supplemented by consumer protection measures, results in a less coordinated approach to addressing  
misrepresentation in online transactions. These differences have implications for legal certainty and the  
effectiveness of consumer redress, especially in an environment where consumers inherently rely on digital  
representations and pre-contractual information. By situating misrepresentation within the broader context of  
electronic commerce, this paper contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions on the capacity of contract law to  
adapt to technological change. The analysis highlights that effective regulation of online misrepresentation  
requires not only the recognition of traditional contractual principles, but also a legal framework that is  
sufficiently clear, integrated, and responsive to the distinctive features of digital transactions. The  
recommendations advanced in this paper are intended to enhance the laws in Malaysia, aimed at strengthening  
the protection of contractual consent in online sales transactions while maintaining coherence with existing legal  
principles.  
Accordingly, the paper recommends the following measures to enhance the regulation of misrepresentation in  
online sales transactions in Malaysia:  
1. Clear statutory differentiation of misrepresentation.  
Introduce express statutory recognition of fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation to improve legal  
clarity and ensure that legal consequences correspond appropriately to the nature of the misleading conduct in  
online sales transactions.  
2. Expansion of remedies beyond rescission in appropriate cases.  
Extend the availability of compensatory remedies for misrepresentation, particularly in cases of non-fraudulent  
conduct, to address reliance-based losses commonly incurred in online transactions.  
3. Improved coherence between contract law and consumer protection legislation.  
Align contractual principles governing misrepresentation more closely with consumer protection frameworks in  
order to reduce regulatory fragmentation and promote consistent and effective resolution of disputes arising from  
online sales transactions.  
4. Introduction of a statutory cooling-off period for online sales transactions.  
Consider the adoption of a statutory cooling-off period for online and distance sales, allowing consumers a  
defined period to withdraw from contracts without penalty. Such a mechanism would provide an additional  
safeguard where contractual consent may have been influenced by inaccurate or incomplete digital  
representations and would strengthen consumer protection against misrepresentation in online sales contexts.  
REFERENCES  
1. Alibeigi, A., & Munir, A. B. (2016). Electronic contracts, the Malaysian perspective. 10th  
International Conference on E Commerce in Developing Countries with Focus on E Tourism Ecdc  
2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECDC.2016.7492986  
Page 22  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
2. Andrews, N. (2016). Misrepresentation and Coercion. In Ius Gentium (Vol. 54).  
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_12  
3. Billis, E. (2017). On the methodology of comparative criminal law research: Paradigmatic  
approaches to the research method of functional comparison and the heuristic device of ideal types.  
Maastricht  
Journal  
of  
European  
and  
Comparative  
Law,  
24(6),  
864–881.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X17745795  
4. Capper, D. (2010). Remedies for misrepresentation: An integrated system. In Commercial Contract  
Law Transatlantic Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139235662.023  
5. Chrissanthis, C. S. (2016). Online sales of insurance products in the EU. In Dematerialized  
Insurance  
Distance  
Selling  
and  
Cyber  
Risks  
from  
an  
International  
Perspective.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28410-1_6  
6. Davies, P. S. (2016). Rescission for Misrepresentation. Cambridge Law Journal, 75(1), 15–17.  
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197316000131  
7. Davis, J. (2019). The role of confusion in unfair competition law: A comparative perspective. In Is  
Intellectual Property Pluralism Functional. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977999.00013  
8. de Almeida Leite, E. M., & Ramos Leite, M. A. (2025). Platform liability, free speech, and market  
fairness: transatlantic legal responses to commercial defamation and digital competition.  
International  
Review  
of  
Law  
Computers  
and  
Technology.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2025.2516967  
9. Edwards, L. (2005). The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe. In New Legal  
Framework for E Commerce in Europe.  
10. Eggers, P. M. (2016). Vitiation of contractual consent: First Edition. In Vitiation of Contractual  
Consent First Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315765563  
11. Gan, S. W. (2010). E-commerce security: A comparative analysis of the law in the UK and  
Malaysia. Proc of the Iadis Int Conf E Commerce 2010 Proc of the Iadis Int Conf E Democracy  
Equity and Social Justice 2010 Part of the Mccsis 2010, 45–52.  
12. Giliker, P. (2017). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 – a bastion of European consumer rights? Legal  
Studies, 37(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12139  
13. Hyde, R. (2019). Students as consumers: Using student experiences to teach consumer contract law.  
In Reimagining Contract Law Pedagogy: A New Agenda for Teaching (pp. 99–111).  
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178189  
14. Idem, U. J., Olarinde, E. S., Anwana, E. O., Awoyemi, B. O., & Obieze, I. D.-D. (2024). Exploring  
the Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Nigeria with Insights from UK and Malaysia. 2024  
International Conference  
on Decision  
Aid  
Sciences and  
Applications Dasa  
2024.  
https://doi.org/10.1109/DASA63652.2024.10836264  
15. Jawahitha, S., & Mazahir, M. I. M. (2005). Online securities trading and control of securities  
offences in Malaysia. Proceedings International Conference on Computational Intelligence for  
Modelling Control and Automation Cimca 2005 and International Conference on Intelligent Agents  
Web Technologies and Internet, 1, 217–222.  
16. Khubalkar, D. N., & Sharma, S. S. (2022). An exigency for consumer protection against counterfeit  
product marketing on the internet: a legislative perspective. International Journal on Consumer Law  
and Practice, 10, 63–79.  
17. Klass, G. (2025). Misrepresentation. In Research Handbook on the Philosophy of Contract Law.  
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885417.00035  
18. Luzak,  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-014-0356-x  
19. Merkin, R., Saintier, S.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198816980.003.0014  
J.  
(2014a).  
Online  
consumer  
contracts.  
Era  
Forum,  
15(3),  
381–392.  
&
(2019).  
14.  
Misrepresentation.  
535–586.  
20. Mohamad, A., Mohd Angsor, M. A., Mohd Adi, M. N., & Jia Min, A. T. (2025). Malaysia’s e-  
commerce landscape: legal structures and operational hurdles. Proceedings of SPIE the International  
Society for Optical Engineering, 13631. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3059023  
21. Mohanty, G., & Rai, G. (2022). The Hermeneutics of the Concept of Misrepresentation: Addressing  
the Quagmire of Damages and Compensation in Cases of Misrepresentation in Formation of a  
Page 23  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025  
Contract Under Indian and English Law. Liverpool Law Review, 43(2), 477–500.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09303-9  
22. Narayanasamy, K., Jacobs, C. J. G. M. C. N., & Seyapalan, P. S. D. (2017). Legislating consumer  
law in Malaysia and the consumers’ apprehension. International Journal of Economic Research,  
14(15), 135–150.  
23. Nik Mahmod, N. A. K., Ghani Azmi, I. M. A., Engku Ali, E. R. A., Wan Ismail, W. A. F., Daud,  
M., & Napiah, M. D. M. (2017). An analysis of consensus Ad Idem: The Malaysian contract law  
and Shari’ah perspective. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(October), 73–  
84.  
24. Nuruddeen, M., & Yusof, Y. (2021). A comparative analysis of the legal norms for e-commerce  
and consumer protection. Malaysian Journal of Consumer and Family Economics, 26, 22–41.  
25. Nwobodo, S., & Weissmann, M. A. (2023). Common Traits in Online Shopping Behavior: A Study  
of Different Generational Cohorts. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(3), 46–60.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22236  
26. Nyathi, M. (2023). Re-asserting the doctrinal legal research methodology in the south african  
academy:  
navigating  
the  
maze.  
South  
African  
Law  
Journal,  
140,  
365–386.  
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i2a5  
27. Othman, Y., Mustaffa, M. S. A., Joni, E. K. E., Badrolhisam, N. I., Hasan, Z., & Ahmad, S. N. A.  
(2017). Online shopping: Consumers’ awareness of their rights and protection. Advanced Science  
Letters, 23(8), 7907–7910. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9606  
28. Pregoner, J. D., Opalla, I. L., Uy, J. D., & Palacio, M. (2020). Customers’ Perception on the  
Trustworthiness  
of  
Electronic  
Commerce:  
A
Qualitative  
Study.  
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/msdpg  
29. Pu, J., Nian, T., Qiu, L., & Cheng, H. K. (2022). Platform Policies and Sellers’ Competition in  
Agency Selling in the Presence of Online Quality Misrepresentation. Journal of Management  
Information Systems, 39(1), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2021.2023410  
30. Rashid, N. I. M., & Razak, F. A. (2023). E-Commerce: Contract and Transaction. International  
Journal  
of  
Law  
Government  
and  
Communication,  
8(31),  
89–96.  
https://doi.org/10.35631/ijlgc.831007  
31. Seah, C. S., Loh, Y. X., Wong, Y. S., Jalaludin, F. W., & Loh, L. H. (2022). The Influence of  
COVID-19 Pandemic on Malaysian E-Commerce Landscape: The case of Shopee and Lazada.  
ACM  
International  
Conference  
Proceeding  
Series,  
215–221.  
https://doi.org/10.1145/3537693.3537726  
32. Sinani, B., & Mehmeti, S. (2025). The Importance of Comparative Law for the Development of  
Contemporary Law. Juridical Tribune Review of Comparative and International Law, 15(1), 5–23.  
https://doi.org/10.62768/TBJ/2025/15/1/01  
33. Triasih, D., Heryanti, B. R., & Pujiastuti, E. (2019). Legal protection for consumers in buying  
agreements online. International Journal of Innovation Creativity and Change, 10(4), 127–142.  
34. Vallejo, A. O., & Ortega, P. V. (2025). Liability of online marketplaces in relation to the underlying  
contract: a confusing outlook in European Union law | Responsabilidad de los mercados en línea  
respecto del contrato subyacente: un confuso panorama en el derecho de la Unión Europea. Indret,  
1, 74–96. https://doi.org/10.31009/InDret.2025.i1.03  
35. West, G. D., & Lewis Jr., W. B. (2009). Contracting to avoid extra-contractual liability-can your  
contractual deal ever really be the “entire” deal? Business Lawyer, 64(4), 999–1038.  
36. Xu, Z.-X., Zhu, Y., & Yang, S. (2025). Tackling false advertising and strengthening consumer  
protection in emerging economies. Journal of General Management, 50(4), 319–332.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070221145859  
37. Zeno, J. (2022). Information in Consumer Contracts: Reforming Consumer Protection Law in  
Malaysia.  
Asian  
Journal  
of  
Comparative  
Law,  
17(2),  
242–267.  
https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.18  
Page 24  
www.rsisinternational.org