Larson entered Forrester's Auto Mart to purchase a used car. Larson found a vehicle with a sales price of $11,000. After Forrester answered all of Larson's questions, Forrester and Larson agreed to a sale. As Larson was leaving to get the money to pay for the car, Forrester told Larson that he thought Robert Redford formerly owned the car. Larson later learned that Robert Redford had never owned the car.
If Larson seeks to rescind the deal based on Forrester’s statement, Larson will:

a. win because he relied on the misrepresentation.
b. win because there was a misrepresentation of a material fact.
c. lose because he will not be able to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.
d. lose because Forrester made a unilateral mistake.

The misrepresentation refers to false indications or to deceive, this is an action that can have legal repercussions depending on the situations of the contract between the person affected and the person who has carried out the misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation is generally used by sellers when making misleading or false statements about the product to the customer. The client has a period to investigate the truth if the fact does not proceed according to the law, likewise, it must be demonstrated that the seller committed a misrepresentation.

For example, in Larson's case when searching for a car, Forrester told him information about the vehicle that turned out to be false, but if Larson sought to terminate the deal because of Forrester's statement, he would lose the case, since Larson had the intention to buy the vehicle before knowing that information, also Forrester did not assure him of the information he gave him, he mentioned that he thought that the vehicle had belonged to Robert Redford, which is why he is not committing a misrepresentation.

I hope this information can help you.