Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd (1965) 2 All ER 65, (1965) 1 WLR 623 at 628, CA
The defendant (Harold) sold the plaintiff (Dick) a car saying that it only done 20,000 miles since major repair.
Harold bought the car but it transpired that the car had done much more then 20,000 miles since the last major repair.
The court said:
"An affirmation at the time of sale is a warranty, provided it appear on evidence to be so intended ... the question whether a warranty was intended depends on the conduct of the parties, on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts. If an intelligent bystander would reasonably infer that a warranty was intended, that would suffice."
Here, the representation was made for the purposes of inducing the sale, thus this was grounds for inferring that the representation was intended as a warranty.
The court went on to say that the defendant could rebut this presumption by showing that his representation was innocent, however the vendor made the statements without checking them out and so the representations were not innocent.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
