Plaintiff sold Defendant a car in a part exchange. Defendant told Plaintiff that the car he was trading in was one type of car and Plaintiff reduced the amount on that basis. It turned out that it was a different type that was worth much less.
Defendant had genuinely believed it to be the type of car he claimed since the person who he bought it off had told him that and the cars documents suggested that.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for the difference between the initially stated value of the car and the actual value of the car.
CA found that Defendant did not have to pay damages.
Was the statement as to the type of the car a “warranty” i.e. a guarantee? Was it a term of the contract, breach of which demands payment? He says determining something as a warranty or a term rather than mere representation depends on intentions of the parties.
In this case the assertion as to the type of car was a claim or a belief, not a promise (quotes the actual speech of Defendant which proves this).
Here, Defendant obviously had no personal knowledge of when the car was made and had he been asked to guarantee the type of car, he would have been unable to do so, not having any more knowledge than what he deduced from the log-book, which Plaintiff had also inspected.
P therefore knew that Defendant was in no position to guarantee or warrant the model of the car: he could merely make an informed guess.
Also in this case Plaintiff could have checked by referencing the chassis no. with the company, but did not do so.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Contract Law Problem Question Summary Notes (157 pages) |