Oscar Chess, Ltd. V Williams PDF

Preview

Summary

Exams practise...

Description

Title: Oscar Chess, Ltd. V Williams Parties: Plaintiff/Respondent - Oscar Chess, Ltd. Defendant/Appellant - Williams Final Court: Court of Appeal Date: October22, November 13, 1956 Procedural History: Oscar Chess Ltd brought an action against Mrs. Williams for claiming ₤115 as the damage of breach of warranty at the Neath and Port Talbot County Count on July 17, 1956. The trial judges awarded the plaintiff ₤115 damage against the defendant for a breach of a warranty that a 2nd hand Morris 10 h.p. salon motor car sold by defendant ant to the plaintiff was a 1948 model, whereas it was in fact a 1939 model. The Defendant appealed in the Court of appeal based on that there was only a mere misrepresentation but not a warranty. Case Fact: In June 1955, the defendant sold her 2nd hand Morris motor car to plaintiff, who was motor dealers, for ₤ 290 and this sum was being credit to the defendant on the purchase of a new car through the dealers. The defendant presented a registration book which showed that the Morris car was firstly registered in 1948 so the defendant sincerely believed that the car was a 1948 model. The plaintiff checked the registration book and agreed with the statement presented by defendant so plaintiff offered a price of₤ 290 for the car. Afer the conclusion of transaction, 8 months later, the plaintiff sent the chassis and engine number of to the car to the manufactures and was informed that the car was actually a 1939 model, noted that the appearance of the model of Morris car did not change from 1939-1948. Therefore the plaintiff claimed ₤115 as the difference in 2nd hand price calculation based on the year model of the motor car because the description of car model was either a condition or a collateral warranty in the binding contract. Legal Issue: Whether the defendant’s description of the model of car was a warranty or a mere misrepresentation.

Decision of Court (Final): Held, the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff in damages for breach of warranty because, having regard particularly to the fact that the defendant had no personal knowledge of the date of manufacture of car and that statement is from defendant’s own opinion. Plaintiff’s argument: 1. The price paid of the Morris car was decided basing on the model suggested by the defendant and registration book provided by defendant. 2. The model of car is a fundamental element of the transaction. 3. The description by defendant mislead plaintiff who was the innocent part. 4. Sue for the difference in price ₤115 according to 2nd hand market. Defendant’s Argument: 1. The car was first registered in 1948 so it was reasonable of defendant to believe that the car was a 1948 model. 2. The statement was only a representation based on personal opinion rather than a condition or warranty. Judge’s Opinion: Denning, L.J.  He defendant was totally innocent that the appearance of Morris car did not change between 1939 and 1948, that she had no special knowledge of the manufacturing date.  The assumption of car model of both parties did not prove that the representation of was a term of contract, which they were both mistaken.  The precise word used by defendant could not be inferred to be a warranty.  The defendant’s representation was only a statement of belief.  The Plaintiff had the special and skilled knowledge so he should discovered the wrong statement at or before the conclusion of transaction. Hodson, L.J.  No evidence to support the conclusion that the statement that the Morris car was a 1948 car was a term of contract  A motor salesman, who was familiar with the car, having ofen had lif in it, and who thought that it looked like a 1948 car.  The defendant was stating an opinion on a matter of which he had no special knowledge.

 There is nothing to indicate that the statement as to the date of car amounted to a promise or guarantee that the information given was accurate.. Morris, L.J.  The statement was a definite and unqualified statement which the defendant did not doubt it.  Not a mere expression of tentative or qualified belief  Everything points to the importance of the statement that the car was a 1948 model, which was not a mere representation in respect of the subject-matter of the contract.  The statement was not written in the contract and the plaintiff did not allege ther was any collateral oral warranty Rule of Law When one party makes a statement over the item or performance which is included in the contract, and the other party has special knowledge towards that, the statement does not amount to a condition or warranty but a mere representation....