Which party typically has the burden of proof in cases of misrepresentation?

In cases of misrepresentation, the party that was misled typically carries the burden of proof. This is because they must establish that a misrepresentation occurred, which influenced their decision to enter into the contract. The misled party needs to demonstrate that the information provided was false, and that it was relied upon when making their contractual decision.

This burden includes proving the elements of misrepresentation: that a false statement was made, that it was material (significant enough to impact the decision), and that it was relied upon by the party who suffered losses as a result. By placing the burden of proof on the party that was misled, the legal system seeks to protect individuals from deceptive practices and ensure that any claims regarding misrepresentation are substantiated with evidence.

Other options involve parties that may have roles in the transaction but do not have the same responsibility for establishing the misrepresentation in a legal context. The one enforcing the contract or claiming no wrongdoing may have separate burdens, but they do not directly address the need to prove misrepresentation. Similarly, the party that offered favorable terms is not necessarily relevant to the misrepresentation claim itself. Hence, the correct choice emphasizes the responsibility of the party that was misled to prove their case.