It is also apparent from the decision in Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 that the court was influenced by the fact that the contract had been reduced into writing and yet the previous oral statement was not included. The inference drawn by the court was that [...]. If it had been, they would have ensured its inclusion in the written agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the statement regarding the year of the model was never intended to be a term of the contract but a representation.
Answer
the statement could not have been regarded as significant by the parties
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
It is also apparent from the decision in Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 that the court was influenced by the fact that the contract had been reduced into writing and yet the previous oral statement was not included. The inference drawn by the court was that [...]. If it had been, they would have ensured its inclusion in the written agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the statement regarding the year of the model was never intended to be a term of the contract but a representation.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
It is also apparent from the decision in Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 that the court was influenced by the fact that the contract had been reduced into writing and yet the previous oral statement was not included. The inference drawn by the court was that [...]. If it had been, they would have ensured its inclusion in the written agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the statement regarding the year of the model was never intended to be a term of the contract but a representation.
Answer
the statement could not have been regarded as significant by the parties
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it rom the decision in Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 that the court was influenced by the fact that the contract had been reduced into writing and yet the previous oral statement was not included. The inference drawn by the court was that <span>the statement could not have been regarded as significant by the parties. If it had been, they would have ensured its inclusion in the written agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the statement regarding the year of the model was never intende
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.