FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2017)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 564 times | Saved to 47 briefcases
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801


Owner of petrol station told tenant that it would sell an estimated 200,000 gallons. Then after, planning permissions changed, affecting station exposure; sales were seen to be much less.
Tenant stopped paying for petrol provided.
Owner sued for reposession. Tenant countersued for breach of warranty, and for negligent misrepresentation.


A statement as to the future is not a statement of fact and cannot amount to a misrepresentation.

A party's relative expertise compared to the other party must be deemed to have warranted a forecast was made with reasonable care and skill, as the statement induced the contract.


(1) Statement as to potential was a contractual warranty for it was a factual statement on a crucial matter made by a party who had, or professed to have, special knowledge with the intention of inducing the other party to enter into the contract of tenancy. That it did induce D to enter contract.
C was in breach of the warranty + liable in damages for the breach.

(2) Statement was a negligent representation. C holding himself out as having special expertise in circumstances --> duty to take reasonable care (DoC) to see that the representation was correct; DoC existed during the pre-contract negotiations and survived the making of the written contract.
C was liable for damages for the tort of negligence.


Court of Appeal:
Appeal allowed for Defendant:

The statement was not a misrepresentation.
The statement was a contractual term (breach of warranty of a collateral contract) or negligent misstatement.

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.