FACTS: The plaintiff car dealers, Oscar Chess Ltd, agreed on a trade-in of the defendant's old car as part of the arrangement when he purchased another car from them. The registration book of the car traded in gave its date as 1948. The defendant, Williams, confirmed this date in good faith. Some months later, it was discovered that the date should have been 1939. The car was thus worth much less than the amount allowed for it in the trade-in arrangement. HELD by a majority of the Court of Appeal: The age of the car was not a term of the contract and therefore there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Here, it was clear that the skill and expertise [...]. Consequently, the statement remained as a representation without contractual force. In contrast, in Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) the skill and expertise was in the hands of the statement maker and thus the statement amounted to a term of the contract, the breach of which entitled the plaintiff to damages.
Answer
lay in the hands of the plaintiff, the car dealers, and not in the hands of Williams who was making the statement
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370
FACTS: The plaintiff car dealers, Oscar Chess Ltd, agreed on a trade-in of the defendant's old car as part of the arrangement when he purchased another car from them. The registration book of the car traded in gave its date as 1948. The defendant, Williams, confirmed this date in good faith. Some months later, it was discovered that the date should have been 1939. The car was thus worth much less than the amount allowed for it in the trade-in arrangement. HELD by a majority of the Court of Appeal: The age of the car was not a term of the contract and therefore there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Here, it was clear that the skill and expertise [...]. Consequently, the statement remained as a representation without contractual force. In contrast, in Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) the skill and expertise was in the hands of the statement maker and thus the statement amounted to a term of the contract, the breach of which entitled the plaintiff to damages.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370
FACTS: The plaintiff car dealers, Oscar Chess Ltd, agreed on a trade-in of the defendant's old car as part of the arrangement when he purchased another car from them. The registration book of the car traded in gave its date as 1948. The defendant, Williams, confirmed this date in good faith. Some months later, it was discovered that the date should have been 1939. The car was thus worth much less than the amount allowed for it in the trade-in arrangement. HELD by a majority of the Court of Appeal: The age of the car was not a term of the contract and therefore there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Here, it was clear that the skill and expertise [...]. Consequently, the statement remained as a representation without contractual force. In contrast, in Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) the skill and expertise was in the hands of the statement maker and thus the statement amounted to a term of the contract, the breach of which entitled the plaintiff to damages.
Answer
lay in the hands of the plaintiff, the car dealers, and not in the hands of Williams who was making the statement
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it d for it in the trade-in arrangement. HELD by a majority of the Court of Appeal: The age of the car was not a term of the contract and therefore there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Here, it was clear that the skill and expertise <span>lay in the hands of the plaintiff, the car dealers, and not in the hands of Williams who was making the statement. Consequently, the statement remained as a representation without contractual force. In contrast, in Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) the skill and expertise was in the
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.