Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Williams sold a Morris car to Oscar Chess Ltd, describing it as a 1948 Morris 10, relying on a car log book that was later found to be a forgery. In reality, the car was a 1939 model, worth significantly less than the £290 paid by Oscar Chess Ltd. The buyer, discovering the car's true model year, claimed breach of contract, arguing that the representation about the car’s model year was a term of the sale agreement.

Issue: Whether the statement about the car being a 1948 model constituted a contractual term or was merely an innocent representation.

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected the claim. The statement about the car being a 1948 model was not intended to be a term of the contract. It was considered an innocent representation, and thus, no damages could be awarded.

Key Judicial Statements: Denning LJ: Test for Incorporation of Representations - To determine if a statement is a contractual term, it must be assessed from the perspective of an objective bystander. The key question is whether the statement was intended to be a term.

💡 Leveluplaw: case emphasizes the importance of intent in distinguishing between contractual terms and mere representations. When assessing whether a statement is a term of the contract, the intention of the parties is crucial. If a seller clearly indicates that they are passing on information from another source rather than providing a personal warranty, the statement is less likely to be considered a binding term of the contract. This case highlights the role of clear communication and context in interpreting contractual statements.