The case at hand deals with $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ that can be an innocent, fraudulent, or negligent misrepresentation. It leads to a remedy for the innocent party depending on the class of misrepresentation.A party is said to misrepresent another if he$/$she has used an $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ that relates to $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,$ or $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ and this statement induced the other party to enter into the contract. An $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ cannot be considered as misrepresentation if the misrepresentor lacks $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ and $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.$ When a party makes a decision$-$inducing statement with $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ and $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ believes the statement to be true, it is called to be an innocent misrepresentation. However, if such a statement was made $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ with the intention to deceive, it becomes a $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ is one where the statement is made innocently but is $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ care in established relationship cases. To determine, if negligent misrepresentation exists, $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ should be satisfied: a$)$ There has to be a $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ to prove duty of $\_\_\_\_\_\_$ between both the parties; and b$)$ the person whose opinion is sought should be $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ in that field of discussion and this expert should $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ of care to the representee. In $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,$ it was found that for a statement to be claimed as inducive, it must be $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ before entering into the contract. The remedy for an innocent misrepresentation is $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ alone in comparison to fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations, where both $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ of the contract are available.In the case at hand, applying Bisset, Tom had a long$-$standing business in $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ but not enough information is available $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ to be an expert in the field. Further, he clearly mentioned that he thought that the farm has $4000$ cattle storage capacity and he didnt send $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ on the statement. In addition, this statement cannot be clearly understood as $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_-$ because applying Atwood, Hunter Cattle before getting into the contract had a $3$rd partys consultant report stating the original cattle holding capacity and the real situation of the property.Applying Bisset, the court will only $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ as it appears to be a case of innocent misrepresentation. Hunter Cattle can challenge the courts order for fraudulent $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$and claim damages under the tort of deceit if they can prove that they solely relied on Toms statement before $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ and that he deceived them intentionally and knew that the property was not suitable for Brahman Cattle and can only hold $1500$ cattle.