FANDOM


(Facts)
(Ratio)
 
Line 33: Line 33:
 
Denning, writing for a unanimous court, states that there is a ''prima facie ''assumption that a representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing a party into the contract is a warranty. It was intended to be acted upon, and it was in fact acted upon.The appellant was a car salesman and therefore that he should have taken the diligence to discover how far it had traveled or at least he should not have made a false representation if he did not know the exact distance. Denning agrees with the trial judge that the representation was not fraudulent; however, it was stated as a fact and was a warranty in the contract for the sale of the car. Therefore, breaching it gives rise to a cause of action for damages.
 
Denning, writing for a unanimous court, states that there is a ''prima facie ''assumption that a representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing a party into the contract is a warranty. It was intended to be acted upon, and it was in fact acted upon.The appellant was a car salesman and therefore that he should have taken the diligence to discover how far it had traveled or at least he should not have made a false representation if he did not know the exact distance. Denning agrees with the trial judge that the representation was not fraudulent; however, it was stated as a fact and was a warranty in the contract for the sale of the car. Therefore, breaching it gives rise to a cause of action for damages.
 
==Ratio==
 
==Ratio==
*A representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing another party to enter into the contract is presumed <span style="cursor:help; color:grey" title="on first appearance">''prima facie''</span> to be a warranty of that contract and therefore, a breach of it will lead to a cause of action for damages – even if it is innocently made.
+
*A representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing another party to enter into the contract is presumed <span style="cursor:help; color:grey" title="on first appearance">''prima facie''</span> to be a warranty of that contract and therefore, a breach of it will lead to a cause of action for damages – can rebut if representation was made innocently. However in this case, the seller should have known about the mileage and thus innocent representation was not an applicable defence,
 
*It is an objective test that is used to determine if a representation was a warranty – if it was intended to be acted upon, and was acted upon, then it is a warranty.
 
*It is an objective test that is used to determine if a representation was a warranty – if it was intended to be acted upon, and was acted upon, then it is a warranty.
 
[[Category:Contract law]]
 
[[Category:Contract law]]

Latest revision as of 18:08, March 10, 2020

FactsEdit

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 further 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.

IssueEdit

  1. Was the statement about the car's mileage an innocent representation or a warranty?

DecisionEdit

Appeal dismissed.

ReasonsEdit

Denning, writing for a unanimous court, states that there is a prima facie assumption that a representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing a party into the contract is a warranty. It was intended to be acted upon, and it was in fact acted upon.The appellant was a car salesman and therefore that he should have taken the diligence to discover how far it had traveled or at least he should not have made a false representation if he did not know the exact distance. Denning agrees with the trial judge that the representation was not fraudulent; however, it was stated as a fact and was a warranty in the contract for the sale of the car. Therefore, breaching it gives rise to a cause of action for damages.

RatioEdit

  • A representation made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing another party to enter into the contract is presumed prima facie to be a warranty of that contract and therefore, a breach of it will lead to a cause of action for damages – can rebut if representation was made innocently. However in this case, the seller should have known about the mileage and thus innocent representation was not an applicable defence,
  • It is an objective test that is used to determine if a representation was a warranty – if it was intended to be acted upon, and was acted upon, then it is a warranty.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.