FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,393 times | Saved to 296 briefcases
Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1 WLR 623 (CA)

Facts:

P said to D he wanted to buy a Bentley. D found one said only had 20 000 miles. P bought. It had more miles. He wants rescission

Issue(s):

Was this an innocent misrepresentation or a warranty?

Ratio:

1. If a representation is made in the course of dealings for a contract
**a. For the very purpose of inducing the other party to act on it,
**b. And it actually induced him to act on it,
2. Then it is prima facie ground for inferring a warranty,
3. The assumption can be rebutted by the maker of the misrepresentation (objectively look at the intention of the party)
**a. If they show it was an innocent misrepresentation

Analysis:

Test for awarding damages:
*A warranty was given
*Superior knowledge and skill of D existed
*Intended to be a warranty
*Reasonable person would be induced to rely on it

Holding:

The statement was a warranty = damages

Comments:

This case focuses on superior knowledge and skill – different then Heilbut when they say that superior skill and knowledge may be a factor but it is not a decisive factor


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.