Terms and Mere Representation PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Terms and Mere Representation PDF

Description

18BSA025 Introduction to Law Topic 5: Terms and Mere Representation A Distinction Between the Two -

Terms are binding parts of a contract. Mere representations are not binding

Before a contract is made, the parties may engage in various negotiations and certain statements will be made. However it does not follow that such statements will be terms that become part of the contract, they could be mere representations. The distinction is important when a statement is untrue because it will determine the type of action that will arise and therefore the remedies available to the claimant. -

If the term is untrue it could give rise to an action for breach of contract. If a mere representation is untrue then it could only give rise to an action for misrepresentation.

Special Knowledge or Skill Oscar Chess Ltd v. Williams (1957) Williams sold his car to Oscar who were motor dealers. Williams described the car as 1948 Morris and confirmed this with the log book. Six months later it was discovered that the car was in fact a 1939 model so Oscar sued William for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal felt that Oscar had special knowledge and experience in determining the age of cars. Therefore it could not be assumed William was to be responsible for the accuracy of the date because Oscar could have verified it whereas William would only rely on the log book. Dick Bentley v. Smith Motors Ltd (1965) Bentley purchased a car from Smith, relying on the representation that it had only traveled 20,000 miles after it had been repaired. Subsequent to the purchase it became clear that the engine had been driven much farther and repairs were required. Bentley brought an action for breach of warranty and was successful at trial, being awarded damages of £400, which Smith appealed....