Scribd
Upload
12 views1 page

Oscar Chess V. Williams (1957) 1 W.L.R. 370: Facts

In OSCAR CHESS V. WILLIAMS [1957], the claimants sued the defendants for breach of contract after discovering the true age of a car sold to them, which was misrepresented. The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendants' statements did not constitute a warranty regarding the car's age, emphasizing the need to assess whether a statement is a warranty based on various considerations. Key factors included the nature of the assumption, the intent behind the statement, and the knowledge of the parties involved.

Uploaded by

tmwinama62003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views1 page

Oscar Chess V. Williams (1957) 1 W.L.R. 370: Facts

In OSCAR CHESS V. WILLIAMS [1957], the claimants sued the defendants for breach of contract after discovering the true age of a car sold to them, which was misrepresented. The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendants' statements did not constitute a warranty regarding the car's age, emphasizing the need to assess whether a statement is a warranty based on various considerations. Key factors included the nature of the assumption, the intent behind the statement, and the knowledge of the parties involved.

Uploaded by

tmwinama62003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

OSCAR CHESS V. WILLIAMS [1957] 1 W.L.R.

370

FACTS
The defendants sold a Morris car to the claimants, who were motor traders,
for £290. The defendants provided a copy of the vehicles first registration
indicating that the car was first registered in 1948. Some eight months later
the claimants became aware that the car had actually been registered in 1939
and was therefore only worth £175. The defendant honestly believed that the
car was a 1948 model. The claimants claimed damages for breach of
contract.
ISSUES
The issue in this context was whether the statements given by the defendants
constituted a warranty as to the age of the car.
DECISION
The Court of Appeal found that the defendants’ comments did not constitute
a warranty. More importantly, the court set out a number of considerations
that should be made when assessing whether a statement is a warranty. (1)
Where an assumption is fundamental to a contract, it does not mean that it is
a term of the contract. (2) The term warranty means a binding promise as
well as a subsidiary, non-essential, term of a contract. (3) A warranty must
be distinguished from an innocent misrepresentation. (4) Whether a warranty
is intended must, judged objectively, be based on the parties’ words and
behaviour. (5) Where one party makes a statement, which should be within
his own knowledge, but not the knowledge of the other, it is easy to infer a
warranty. If the party states that it is not within his knowledge and is
information passed from another, a warranty is less easily inferred. (6) An
oral representation repeated in writing suggests a warranty, but the issue is
not conclusive. Neither is the fact that it is not stated in writing.

1|Page

You might also like