عنوان مقاله [English]
misrepresentation, indeed, by some justifications, faces diverse meanings in Iran and English law. It is being decades that English law has discovered the doctrine of "misrepresentation" from common sense. On the other hand, Iran's civil law, which gives little value to pre-contractual negotiations and has accepted the tort categories in a limited and inflexible manner, despite the fact that it ignored the general rule regarding misrepresentation of through the Civil code of Iran, nevertheless, the new perspective of the legislator in the Consumer act is that many of the types of statements that lead to misrepresentations such as mere-puff or silence have been encountered as actionable false advertisements. In this paper, the centralized question is within Art 19 and 7 of the Iranian Consumer Act which provides penalties for advertisers in contracts B2C. The author suggests the same common method regulations for Iran and proposes preventing from including puffs, future, intentions, and silence in the scope of misrepresentation. this study aims to evaluate the system’s legal systems perspectives to the types of misrepresentation. Therefore, the types, for instance, puffing, silence and etc., have been examined in a comparative manner so the researchers may have looked at both legal systems.