Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Terms and Representation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) = REPRESENTATION:
        
        The statement was made by a private seller who had no real specialist skill or knowledge
      - Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Motors Ltd (1965) = TERM:
        
        The statement was held to be a term as it was made by a car dealer who would claim to have special skill / knowledge
  - - - i) Wholly written:
        
        If the statement was not part of the written contract, it won't be regarded as a term
        
        Routledge v McKay (1954):
        
        Issue: Whether D's statement about the motorcycle's year constituted a contractual term or a mere representation
        
        Held: Held that statement is a representation. Because the document was not prima facie evidence of a contractual term. Neither party was an expert and there was a laps of time between statement and contract, allows C to verify information. Th written agreement did not mention the date and explicitly stated that the transaction was closed.
      - ii) Partly oral and partly written:
        
        Then it is still possible for the statement to be a term
        
        Birch v Paramount Estates (1956):
        
        Facts: D made a statement on quality of house. But when contract was reduced to writing it made no reference to this statement. Despite its omission in the written contract.
        
        Held: CA regarded the statement as a contractual term.
  - - - Routledge v McKay:
        
        Intervals between the time of statements made, and the contract entered into must be taken into account
    - - Schawel v Reade (1913):
        
        C inspected a horse, intending to use it for breeding. D assured C that the horse was "perfectly sound". D further promised that if any issues arose, he will personally inform C. But the horse had significant hereditary defect rendering it unfit for its intended purpose
        
        Issue: Whether the assurance about the stallion's health can be considered a effective term of the contract
        Held: statement is deemed a contractual term. D's explicit promise allowed C to rely on his word. C clarified the intended purpose of the horse, making a claim for reasonable lack of knowledge less feasible.
        
        Although D didn't expressly say it, he was aware of C's interest and assured him it was fit for purpose. Case also highlighted the Court's willingness to consider all relevant circumstances when evaluating unusual / unfamiliar situation
        
        [There's no fix rule, depends on circumstance / situation]