FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,247 times | Saved to 297 briefcases
Murray v Sperry Rand Co (1979), 23 R 456 (HC) (Ont)

Facts:

P bought machine based on brochure that said X. The seller said it would do X and Y. Machine didn’t do X or Y

Issue(s):

Was the brochure a warranty, and if so who if anyone is liable, the seller and/or manufacturer?

Ratio:

A party may be liable for breach of warranty notwithstanding that he had no contractual relationship with the person to whom the warranty was given
**Intentions of the party governs

Analysis:

The representations were fundamental to the decision to purchase the machine.

The manufacturer was not a party to the written contract – but it had published the brochure. The brochure was intended to be a sales tool – so should be treated as a promise.

There is no difference whether affirmations are made orally or written. The statements made by the seller were treated as collateral warranty – because the main K did not say anything about it

Holding:

The seller and the manufacturer are liable


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.