Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
L’ESTRANGE
V
F.GRAUCOB, LIMITED (FACTS (The plaintiff bought a vending …
L’ESTRANGE
V
F.GRAUCOB, LIMITED
FACTS
The plaintiff bought a vending machine from the defendant. However, after several weeks the machine started to do not work. Then, the plaintiff took legal action towards the defendant under the virtue of misrepresentation about the machine and the contract by the defendant. Where, in the contract it already stated in clause of small print about the condition of the sales agreement.
7 FEB 1933
the plaintiff call the plaintiff asked about the vending machine and the meeting were set at the plaintiff stepmother’s house. On the same date, the plaintiff had paid 4l to the plaintiff as showing that she agreed to buy the machine.
9 FEB 1933
The defendant having received the sales agreement document where the date on the document were 7 FEB 1933, sent to the plaintiff an “order confirmation” of the date signed by them.
28 MARCH 1933
The machine was delivered to the plaintiff house. And a day after that, a mechanic come and installed the machine at the plaintiff house.
07 APRIL 1933
The plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant to inform them about the condition of the machine where it started to jammed and unworkable.
27 APRIL 1933
The plaintiff once again wrote a letter to the defendant reported about the machine condition.
4 MAY 1933
The plaintiff once again wrote a letter to the defendant reported that the machine hat not been used for a month due to its poor condition.
-
-
-
-
PRINCIPLE
On appeal, the court had apply the principle by virtue of the case Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Hynes where the court had stated that the appearance of both case almost the same. To argue on the first court decision, the court had applied the principle in the Richardson, Spence & Co v Rowntree case where three question had been pointed out. They are :
Whether the plaintiff knew there was printed material on the document which she signed
Whether she did not know that the document contained conditions relating to the contract
Whether the defendant did not do what reasonably sufficient to bring these conditions to the notice of the plaintiff
So, based on these principle, the court had reversed the decision of the previous court during the appeal.
JUDGEMENT
At first, the country court had stated there was implied warranty that the machine should be reasonably fit for that purpose and the court found as fact that warranty has broken. In behalf of the defendant, the court apply the principle in the Perker v South Eastern Ry. Co case. Therefore, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to rely upon the the clause which exclude implied warranties from the contract. Thus, the defendant must include implied warranty in the clause.
However, on appeal the court had reverse the decision in the first court. The court held that, the respondent was bound by her signature despite the fact that the relevant clause was in small print and despite the fact that she had not read it.