Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd

[1965] 1 WLR 623

Case summary last updated at 01/01/2020 17:32 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd

 D sold P a car but made false claims as to the mileage of the car and P sued for the difference between the value he paid and the actual value. CA allowed his claim. 
 
Denning LJ: If a representation is made so that P will act on it, and P does in fact act on it, there is prima facie ground for saying that it was a warranty. This presumption can be rebutted by D if he can show that (1) it was made innocently i.e. he had no fault in a false representation being made, and (2) that it would not, in the circumstances, be reasonable for him to be bound by it. In this case the prima facie warranty is not rebutted since D was in a position to, and ought to, have found out the truth about the car. The statement as to mileage was made without justification. This is contrasted with D in Oscar Chess who could not have discovered the truth about the car.

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd crops up in following areas of law