The Honesty Trap: Why “Just the Facts” Leads to Lawsuits and How to Build Bulletproof Trust

For the first decade of my 15-year career in contract law, I thought my job was simple: keep my clients safe by making sure everything they said in a contract or a sales pitch was factually true.

I was a litigator turned preventative strategist, and I saw myself as a guardian of facts, a meticulous inspector checking every statement against a rigid code of truth.

Then, one case—one single, technically true statement—cost a well-intentioned client a fortune and shattered my entire professional worldview.

My client, a small tech firm, had developed an innovative software product.

We worked together for weeks, poring over their marketing materials.

My mandate was clear: no embellishments, no exaggerations, just verifiable facts.

One line in their brochure stated the software was compatible with “all major operating systems.” At the time we wrote it, this was 100% accurate.

We checked.

We verified.

We were on solid ground.

Or so I thought.

A few months after a major customer purchased the software, a new version of a popular operating system was released.

My client’s software, which hadn’t been updated for this new version, was no longer compatible.

The customer, who had purchased the software assuming forward compatibility, sued for misrepresentation.

In court, it didn’t matter that our statement was true when we made it.

What mattered was what we didn’t say.

The omission—the lack of any mention of versioning or future compatibility—was deemed a material misrepresentation.¹

We had followed the standard legal playbook, and it had failed spectacularly.

The pain of that experience wasn’t just the financial loss for my client; it was the realization that my understanding of “truth” was dangerously incomplete.

Being factually correct wasn’t enough.

Something profound was missing from my approach, and I became obsessed with finding out what it was.

Part I: The Legal Labyrinth: What “Innocent Misrepresentation” Really Means

To understand the trap I had fallen into, you first need to understand the rules of the game as I once knew them.

In contract law, not all falsehoods are created equal.

The legal system distinguishes between different types of misrepresentation based almost entirely on the state of mind of the person making the statement.

This was the “building code” I used to inspect my clients’ work, and it’s the foundation for nearly every contract dispute.

The Three Faces of a Falsehood: Intent is Everything (and Nothing)

Courts generally recognize a spectrum of misrepresentation, from an honest mistake to an outright lie.³

• Innocent Misrepresentation: This is the “honest mistake.” It’s a false statement of fact made by someone who had reasonable grounds to believe it was true at the time.¹ There is no intent to deceive. Imagine a private seller advertising a car as having 20,000 miles on the odometer, genuinely unaware that a previous owner had illegally rolled it back. The seller believes the statement is true, but it’s not.⁶ Even without bad intent, this can be enough to unwind a contract.
• Negligent Misrepresentation: This is a step up in culpability. It occurs when someone makes a statement carelessly, without exercising the reasonable care required to verify its truth.³ The key concept here is the breach of a “duty of care” owed to the other party.⁹ Think of a real estate agent who assures a buyer that a property has no history of flooding, without ever bothering to check the publicly available flood-plain maps or disclosure documents.⁷ They didn’t lie intentionally, but their carelessness caused harm.
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation: This is the most serious form, involving a statement made knowingly, without any belief in its truth, or recklessly, with a conscious disregard for whether it’s true or false.³ This is what most people think of as fraud or deceit. It requires an intent to deceive, known in legal terms as
  scienter. This carries the most severe legal consequences, including not only canceling the contract but also awarding damages to compensate the victim and, in some cases, punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer.³

The Anatomy of a Claim: The Five Hurdles to a Lawsuit

For a misrepresentation claim to succeed in court—even for an innocent one—the wronged party typically has to prove several key elements ¹:

1. A False Statement of a Material Fact: The statement must be about a fact, not just an opinion or sales puffery (e.g., “this is the best coffee in the world”).¹ Crucially, the fact must be
   material, meaning it has to be important enough to influence a reasonable person’s decision to enter the contract.¹ For example, stating a car has 15,000 miles when it actually has 150,000 is clearly material. Stating it has 15,000 miles when it has 15,124 is likely not.¹
2. Reliance and Inducement: The other party must have actually relied on the false statement when making their decision. The statement must have induced them to enter the contract.¹ If the buyer ignores the seller’s claim about the car’s mileage and instead hires their own mechanic who provides a full report, they cannot later claim they relied on the seller’s statement.⁹
3. Causation and Damages: The reliance on that false statement must be the direct cause of the plaintiff suffering a measurable loss or harm.¹ If the broken stereo was going to be used only for parts anyway, the fact that it was misrepresented as “fully functional” may not have caused any actual damage.

The Primary Remedy: Unwinding the Deal (Rescission)

For innocent misrepresentation, the court’s primary goal isn’t to punish the person who made the mistake.

It’s to achieve what’s known as restitutio in integrum—to restore both parties to the position they were in before the contract was ever signed.¹⁶

The main tool for this is

rescission, which effectively cancels or unwinds the contract.¹

The buyer returns the defective television, and the seller returns the money.¹

However, this remedy isn’t always available.

Courts may block rescission under certain conditions, known as “bars to rescission” ¹⁶:

• Affirmation: If you discover the misrepresentation but continue to act as if the contract is valid (e.g., you keep using the defective product), you may be deemed to have “affirmed” the contract and lost your right to rescind it.¹⁶
• Lapse of Time: An unreasonable delay in seeking rescission after discovering the truth can bar the remedy.¹⁷
• Impossibility: If it’s impossible to restore the parties to their original positions (e.g., the goods have been consumed or fundamentally altered), rescission may be denied.¹⁶
• Third-Party Rights: If rescinding the contract would harm an innocent third party who has acquired rights under the contract (like a bank that provided a mortgage), a court may be reluctant to grant it.¹⁶

In some jurisdictions, particularly those influenced by UK and Canadian law, courts have the discretion to award monetary damages in lieu of rescission for innocent misrepresentation, though this is less common in the United States.¹²

This entire legal framework is logical, structured, and detailed.

It was the world I lived in.

Yet, it was also fundamentally reactive.

It explained, with perfect clarity, how to clean up a mess once it had already been made.

It offered no real guidance on how to prevent the mess in the first place, which is how my well-meaning client ended up in a legal battle despite their best efforts to be honest.

Feature	Innocent Misrepresentation	Negligent Misrepresentation	Fraudulent Misrepresentation
State of Mind	Honest but mistaken belief in the statement’s truth.5	Careless or reckless disregard for the statement’s truth.7	Knowingly making a false statement or being reckless as to its truth.3
Core Element	The maker had reasonable grounds to believe the statement was true.1	There was a breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care in communicating information.10	There was an intent to deceive the other party (scienter).13
Primary Remedy (US/Canada)	Rescission (cancellation) of the contract. Damages are rarely available.6	Rescission and/or compensatory damages for losses incurred.4	Rescission and/or compensatory and potentially punitive damages.3
Example	A homeowner sells a house, honestly believing the plumbing is up to code based on an old inspection report, when it is not.11	A financial advisor recommends an investment without properly researching its high-risk nature.7	A company intentionally falsifies its revenue figures to secure a merger deal.21

Part II: The Epiphany: Why We Mislead When We Mean to Be Honest

After the painful loss in the software case, I was adrift.

The legal code I had relied on felt like a faulty instrument.

My search for answers led me far outside the familiar territory of law books.

I started reading voraciously in behavioral economics and psychology, devouring the work of thinkers like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.²²

And that’s when I had my epiphany.

The problem wasn’t the law.

The problem was that the law is designed for rational actors, and human beings are anything but.

We operate on hidden mental programming that makes us mislead even when we are trying our hardest to be honest.

The Architect and the Blueprint: A New Paradigm for Trust

This realization led me to develop a new analogy for my work, one that completely reframed my role from a reactive inspector to a proactive designer.

• The Inspector (The Old Way): The traditional lawyer is an inspector. A client brings them a finished contract—the blueprint—and the lawyer checks it against the legal building code. “Does this clause violate Rule 74.01 of the Competition Act? Is this statement factually false?”.²⁴ The inspector’s job is to find flaws and ensure compliance. They are focused on technical accuracy and post-dispute defense. This was my old self.
• The Architect (The New Way): The modern legal strategist must be an architect. An architect doesn’t just check a finished blueprint; they design the building from the ground up with the end-user in mind. They ask: “How will a person actually experience this building? Where are the confusing hallways or potential tripping hazards? What assumptions will people bring with them when they walk through the door?” The architect’s job is not just to be compliant, but to be clear, intuitive, and fundamentally safe for the people who will use the structure.²⁶ This is a shift from reactive legal defense to proactive communication design.

The Mind’s Hidden Blueprints: An Introduction to Cognitive Biases

The key to being an architect of communication is understanding that the other party isn’t coming to your contract or marketing pitch with a blank slate.

They have their own “hidden blueprints” in their minds—a collection of mental shortcuts (heuristics) and systematic patterns of thought (cognitive biases) that they use to interpret the world.²³

These aren’t character flaws; they are features of an efficient brain, evolved to make quick judgments in a complex world.²⁹

The danger arises when our “blueprint” (our contract) fails to account for their “hidden blueprint” (their cognitive biases).

This gap between what we say and how they hear it is where misrepresentation is born.

This led me to the most unsettling realization of all.

The very legal standard for innocent misrepresentation—that the person had “reasonable grounds to believe” their statement was true—is built on a psychological illusion.

What feels “reasonable” to us is often a product of our own biases.

Confirmation Bias leads us to seek out and remember only the information that supports our belief, making our grounds feel solid when they are, in fact, flimsy.²⁸

The

Bias Blind Spot convinces us that we are objective and rational, while the other party is the one being biased.³⁰

This is the essence of the “Honesty Trap.” A business owner can feel completely sincere and believe their statements are reasonable, all while their own cognitive biases are blinding them to the omissions, ambiguities, and misleading frames that are creating massive legal risk.

Their feeling of innocence is real, but their legal exposure is just as real.

Part III: The Hidden Dangers in Our Blind Spots: A Field Guide to Cognitive Traps

Once I started looking at contracts and marketing through the lens of an architect, I began to see the “architectural flaws”—the cognitive traps—everywhere.

These are the specific biases that turn well-intentioned communication into a minefield of potential misrepresentation.

The Omission Bias: The Loud Silence of What’s Left Unsaid

This was the bias that sank my client.

The Omission Bias is our deep-seated tendency to judge a harmful action as more blameworthy than an equally harmful inaction (an omission).³²

We feel that

saying something wrong is far worse than failing to say something right.

This creates a perilous trap for communicators.

We spend countless hours vetting the sentences we write, but far less time scrutinizing the things we leave unsaid.

Silence feels safe.

However, as my client learned, the law can treat a material omission as the equivalent of an explicit false statement, especially when one party has superior knowledge.²

The very instinct that our brain uses to protect us—staying quiet—is what exposes us to legal liability.

The Framing Effect: How “95% Effective” and “5% Ineffective” Are Two Different Products

The Framing Effect describes how our decisions are powerfully influenced by whether options are presented in terms of potential gains or potential losses.²²

This is the bedrock of all marketing.

We naturally frame our products in a positive light.

A disinfectant that “kills 95% of germs” sounds far more appealing than one where “5% of germs survive,” even though the statements are factually identical.²²

This becomes legally dangerous when a positive frame obscures a material risk that a neutral or negative frame would have revealed.

Prospect theory teaches us that people are “loss averse”; the pain of a loss is felt more strongly than the pleasure of an equivalent gain.²²

By framing everything as a gain, we can lull the other party into a false sense of security, preventing them from properly evaluating the risks.

Consumer protection laws, like Canada’s Competition Act, often look at the “general impression” created by an advertisement, not just its literal truthfulness.²⁵

A relentlessly positive frame can create a misleading general impression, forming the basis of a misrepresentation claim.

The Curse of Knowledge & The Illusion of Transparency: “But It Was So Obvious to Me!”

These two biases are a deadly combination for experts.

The Curse of Knowledge is the cognitive blind spot that makes it difficult for us to imagine what it’s like for someone who doesn’t know what we know.

The Illusion of Transparency is our tendency to overestimate how well other people understand our internal state, our intentions, and our meaning.³⁰

Engineers, doctors, and, yes, lawyers are especially prone to this.

We use technical jargon, acronyms, and conceptual shortcuts because the underlying context is “obvious” to us.

We assume our meaning is being transmitted clearly.

This leads directly to ambiguity in contracts and communications.²

When a key term is left undefined or a process is described without sufficient context, it creates a vacuum.

The other party fills that vacuum with their own interpretation, which may be perfectly reasonable to them but completely different from what was intended.

This interpretive gap is fertile ground for a misrepresentation claim.

Anchoring and Confirmation Bias: The Danger of First Impressions and Stubborn Beliefs

In any negotiation, the first piece of information offered can act as a powerful mental Anchor.²⁸

A high opening price, an aggressive claim about market share, or a bold promise can anchor the entire subsequent discussion.

Once that anchor is set,

Confirmation Bias kicks in, and the other party will tend to seek out and interpret all new information in a way that confirms their initial impression.²⁸

This is legally significant because if an early, inaccurate statement (even an innocent one) induces the other party to enter or continue negotiations, it can be viewed as a material inducement for the final contract.

The law recognizes that a series of representations can have a cumulative effect, and these biases explain the psychological engine driving that principle.¹³

Even if the final contract contains the corrected information, the memory and influence of the initial anchor can linger, forming the basis of a claim that the deal was entered into under a false premise.

Cognitive Trap	Psychological Definition	Concrete Business Example	Resulting Legal Risk
Omission Bias	Judging harmful actions as worse than equally harmful inactions (omissions).32	Failing to disclose that your “unlimited” cloud storage service has a “fair use” policy that throttles speed after 1TB of usage.	Misrepresentation by omission. A court could find the failure to disclose the material limitation makes the “unlimited” claim false.2
Framing Effect	Reacting differently to the same choice depending on how it’s presented (e.g., gain vs. loss).22	Marketing a financial product by highlighting a “5% annual return” while burying the high-risk profile in the fine print.	Creating a misleading “general impression” that violates consumer protection laws.25 The positive frame obscures a material fact (risk).
Curse of Knowledge	Forgetting what it is like for someone to not know what you know.30	In a software development contract, stating a deliverable is “a RESTful API” without defining the specific endpoints, data formats, or authentication methods required.	Ambiguity leading to a dispute over scope. The client can claim they were misled about what the API would actually do.2
Anchoring Bias	Relying too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making decisions.28	Starting a sales pitch by saying, “Our main competitor charges $50,000,” before revealing your price of $30,000, even if your cost basis is only $10,000.	If the competitor’s price is misrepresented, it could be seen as a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation used to induce the contract by making your price seem more reasonable than it is.

Part IV: The Proactive Transparency Framework: From Legal Defense to Business Offense

Diagnosing the disease is one thing; curing it is another.

My journey led me to develop a new methodology for my clients, a system I call the Proactive Transparency Framework.

This is the architect’s toolkit.

It’s a systematic process designed to close the gap between what we say and what others hear by actively countering the cognitive biases that lead to misinterpretation.

It transforms communication from a legal liability into a business asset.

Principle 1: Assume Misinterpretation (The Communication “Stress Test”)

This principle flips the traditional legal objective on its head.

Instead of asking, “Is this statement true?” the architect asks, “How could this statement be misunderstood?”

The process involves a “pre-mortem” exercise.

Before a contract, marketing campaign, or major announcement is finalized, you must assemble a diverse group of people—not just the lawyers and experts who created it, but people from sales, customer service, and even outside the project.

Their sole task is to brainstorm the most cynical, literal, naive, or even bad-faith ways a key statement could be interpreted.²⁴

This isn’t about finding fault; it’s about finding weaknesses.

It’s a stress test that proactively uncovers the hidden ambiguities that would otherwise only surface during a dispute.

Principle 2: De-Jargon and Define (The Clarity Audit)

This goes far beyond the generic advice to “use simple language”.³⁸

It is a systematic audit designed to neutralize the Curse of Knowledge.

The process follows a simple checklist:

1. Identify and Eliminate Jargon: Scour the document for any term, phrase, or acronym that isn’t in common daily use. If it must be used, it must be defined.²⁷
2. Define Key Terms: Create a dedicated “Definitions” section in any formal agreement. This should define not only technical terms but also seemingly simple ones that could be open to interpretation, like “Business Day” or “Completion”.²⁷
3. Quantify the Vague: Words like “promptly,” “significant,” “materially,” or “reasonable” are invitations to a future lawsuit. Replace them with objective, quantifiable metrics wherever possible. Instead of “payment will be made promptly,” use “payment will be made within 15 calendar days of invoice receipt.”

Principle 3: Context is King (The “Why” Layer)

This principle is the direct antidote to the Illusion of Transparency.

It’s about making our implicit assumptions and intentions explicit.

The most effective way to do this is to use the often-neglected “recitals” or “whereas” clauses at the beginning of a contract.

Instead of treating them as legal boilerplate, use them to tell a story—to explain the business context, the goals of the parties, and the problem the agreement is intended to solve.²

For critical obligations within the contract, consider adding a simple, plain-language sentence that explains the “why” behind the “what.” For example: “Party A shall provide the monthly analytics report by the 5th of each month.

(This deadline is critical to allow Party B sufficient time to incorporate the data into its monthly presentation to the Board of Directors.)” This small addition provides invaluable context and dramatically reduces the chance of misinterpretation.

Principle 4: Document Your Diligence (The Architect’s Audit Trail)

This final principle provides a powerful shield against future claims.

The best defense against a claim of negligent misrepresentation is to prove you exercised “reasonable care”.⁸

The best defense against innocent misrepresentation is to show you had “reasonable grounds” for your beliefs.⁶

This principle is about creating the evidence to prove it.

This means documenting the process of your communication design, not just the final product.²⁴

Keep records of your “Stress Test” sessions.

Preserve drafts that show how a vague clause was debated and clarified.

Save emails where you explained the context behind a decision.

This audit trail becomes an invaluable asset.

It demonstrates a culture of proactive, thoughtful, and ethical communication, making it far more difficult for a plaintiff to argue they were misled through carelessness or mistake.⁴¹

Proactive Transparency Checklist	Action Item
1. Assume Misinterpretation	[ ] Have we conducted a “pre-mortem” session with a diverse team to identify potential misinterpretations? [ ] Have we documented the top 3-5 ways our key statements could be misunderstood? [ ] Have we redrafted the language to directly address and prevent these misunderstandings?
2. Clarity Audit	[ ] Have all industry-specific acronyms and internal jargon been explicitly defined in the document? [ ] Have all subjective/vague terms (e.g., “reasonable,” “timely,” “significant”) been replaced with objective metrics or clearly defined? [ ] Has a non-expert (someone outside the project team) read the document and confirmed they understand it?
3. Context Layer	[ ] Do the opening recitals (“Whereas” clauses) clearly explain the business goals and background of the agreement? [ ] For the most critical obligations, have we included a brief, plain-language sentence explaining why the clause exists?
4. Audit Trail	[ ] Are notes from the “pre-mortem” and other review sessions saved in a central location? [ ] Are key drafts showing the evolution of important clauses preserved? [ ] Is there a record of communications where we asked the other party for clarification on their needs and assumptions?

Conclusion: Building on a Foundation of Trust

I began my journey as an inspector, checking blueprints against a rigid code.

My painful epiphany forced me to become an architect, recognizing that a legally compliant structure can still be confusing, dangerous, and ultimately uninhabitable for the people it’s meant to serve.

The old way of thinking—focusing only on factual accuracy—is a trap.

It ignores the hidden blueprints of cognitive bias that govern how we all process information.

The Proactive Transparency Framework is more than just a defensive strategy to avoid lawsuits.

It is a business offense.

I saw this firsthand when I applied the framework with a new client embarking on a complex, multi-million dollar software integration project.

Haunted by my past failure, we didn’t just check their scope of work for accuracy; we “stress-tested” it.

We identified that the term “seamless integration” was a cognitive landmine.

We replaced it with a detailed chart specifying exactly which data fields would sync, at what frequency, and with what known limitations.

We added a “Context Layer” to explain why certain features were out of scope due to the technical architecture of the legacy systems involved.

Months later, my client told me that their customer’s CTO had remarked on the clarity of the document, noting that it proactively answered questions that would have otherwise become major points of contention and frustration down the line.

We didn’t just avoid a lawsuit; we built a foundation of trust that accelerated the project and strengthened the relationship.

In a world of ever-increasing complexity, “just the facts” is no longer a safe harbor.

It is a strategic liability.

The future of effective and ethical business belongs not to the inspectors of facts, but to the architects of understanding—those who design their communications with a deep and empathetic awareness of the human minds they seek to engage.

Works cited

1. What Is Innocent Misrepresentation Law? | LegalMatch, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/innocent-misrepresentation.html
2. Omissions in Contract Recitals That Cause Litigation – Attorney Aaron Hall, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://aaronhall.com/omissions-in-contract-recitations-causing-litigation/
3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation – FindLaw, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/fraudulent-misrepresentation.html
4. Guide on Misrepresentation in a contract – Walker Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://tcwalkerlawyers.com/avoid-contractual-disputes-a-guide-on-misrepresentations-in-a-contract/
5. The 3 Types of Misrepresentation in Contract Law: Critical Differences Explained, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://martinezlawcenter.com/types-of-misrepresentation/
6. Innocent Misrepresentation in Contracts and Legal Remedies, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.upcounsel.com/innocent-misrepresentation
7. Negligent Misrepresentation Examples and Legal Consequences – UpCounsel, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.upcounsel.com/negligent-misrepresentation
8. Negligent Misrepresentation Defenses – LegalMatch, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/negligent-misrepresentation-defenses.html
9. Misrepresentation – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
10. Misrepresentation – Practical Law – Thomson Reuters, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
11. Lawsuits over misrepresentation in property sales – The Quitmeier Law Firm, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.wmqlaw.com/blog/2023/01/lawsuits-over-misrepresentation-in-property-sales/
12. Misrepresentation | Practical Law – Thomson Reuters, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
13. Misrepresentation: Negligent & Innocent statements in contract law – Hall Ellis Solicitors, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://hallellis.co.uk/misrepresentation-negligent-innocent-fraud/
14. Misrepresentation and the 11 facts you need to know – Lincoln & Rowe Law Firm, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://lincolnandrowe.com/2024/04/17/misrepresentation-facts-you-should-know/
15. misrepresentation in contract law – MARTIN GEORGE & CO., accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.primerus.com/files/magco/Article%2016.pdf
16. What About Innocent Misrepresentation? – Weilers LLP, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://weilers.ca/2023/02/19/what-about-innocent-misrepresentation/
17. Misrepresentation in Contract Law: Rescission and Other Remedies, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://martinezlawcenter.com/remedies-for-misrepresentation/
18. Innocent misrepresentation: Overview, definition and example – Cobrief, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.cobrief.app/resources/legal-glossary/innocent-misrepresentation-overview-definition-and-example/
19. Negligent Misrepresentation – ASHA, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.asha.org/practice/ethics/neg_misrep/
20. No. 2-02-0145, Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc. – Illinois Courts, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/1d30cc14-e330-40df-bc57-307a6d63c66d/2020145.htm
21. Misrepresentation: Legal Implications and Practical Understanding – UpCounsel, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.upcounsel.com/misrepresentation-example
22. Framing effect – The Decision Lab, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect
23. Behavioral Economics in Contract Law – Number Analytics, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/behavioral-economics-contract-law
24. Defending Against Fraud & Misrepresentation Claims in Business – Attorney Aaron Hall, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://aaronhall.com/defending-against-fraud-misrepresentation-claims-in-business-2/
25. False or misleading representations – Competition Bureau Canada, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/false-or-misleading-representations
26. Tips for Communication & Transparency in Contract Drafting, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.contractworks.com/blog/tips-for-communication-transparency-in-the-early-stages-of-the-contract-drafting-process
27. Transparent Contracting Essentials – Number Analytics, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/transparent-contracting-essentials
28. Cognitive Biases in Contract Law – Number Analytics, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/cognitive-biases-in-contract-law
29. List of Cognitive Biases and Heuristics – The Decision Lab, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases
30. List of cognitive biases – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
31. 9 Important Cognitive Biases That Fuel Conflict | Pollack …, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://pollackpeacebuilding.com/blog/cognitive-biases-fuel-conflict-2/
32. Omission Bias – The Decision Lab, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/omission-bias
33. Omission bias, individual differences, and normality – CiteSeerX, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=237c73bc07c5de7ee2f119e7ee2e89a22ea9bb8f
34. Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act: a Private Cause of Action for Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices – DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/context/mlr/article/2383/viewcontent/38_4_733_maryland.pdf
35. Framing (social sciences) – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
36. (PDF) Marketing Implications of Framing in the Decision‑Making – ResearchGate, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328590648_Marketing_Implications_of_Framing_in_the_Decision-Making
37. How to Avoid Unfair Trade Practices in Your Business – Woods Lonergan PLLC, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.woodslaw.com/how-to-avoid-unfair-trade-practices-in-your-business/
38. Building Customer Trust Through Transparent Contracts: A Local Business Advantage, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://surge.law/transparent-contracts-for-local-business/
39. Navigating Misrepresentation in Global Business – Number Analytics, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/navigating-misrepresentation-global-business
40. Tips & Checklists – Effective Communication during Contract Implementation, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.worldcc.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JDrlFsw_X-8%3D&portalid=1
41. Ethical Marketing Guide: Principles, Practices & Strategies (2025 …, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://matomo.org/blog/2025/03/a-primer-to-ethical-marketing-how-to-build-trust-in-a-privacy-first-world/
42. Ethical Communication Principles for Brands | TEAM LEWIS, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.teamlewis.com/magazine/4-basic-principles-of-ethical-communications/