Uploaded by Zhang Yichen


Special Knowledge;
Bannerman v White (1861)
If person with special
knowledge makes statement
then taken as term as expert.
Asked if Hops treated with Sulphur
otherwise not interested.
Allows ability to claim damages:
HELD: Discussion amounted to
condition of contract, breached. so,
could repudiate.
Dick Bentley Productions
v Harold Smith Motors
Customer asked car dealer to
find Bentley in good condition.
Sold him and claimed 20,000
miles. 100,000 miles done.
HELD: Allowed to sue, sellers
Statement is term or mere
representation depends;
Importance on statement
Special knowledge/skill
If statement needs to be verified
Time between statement and
5. Reduction to writing
Automatic right to claim damages on proof
of breach of a term of a contract
Damages for misrepresentation may only be
claimed on proof of fault
Importance of statement;
So important and not contract
without it, it would be taken
as term of contract.
Term is statement parties intend
to be bound by, if not comply
then breach of contract.
Representation is a statement
made before or at the time of
contract, NOT part of contract
but may be part of
negotiation. If not accurate =
Oscar Chess v Williams
D sold P (car dealers) a car
stating 1948 model. 1939
model. Paid too much, sued.
HLED: D honestly believed as
registration doc stated.
Objective test used. Innocent
misrep as seller no expertise.
Verification required;
Routledge v McKay (1954)
Makes statement but tells
party to get verified,
unlikely to be term.
Time between contract;
Schawel v Reade (1913)
Longer the time passed,
less likely to be part of
1039 motorcycle wrongly
described as 1941 in reg doc.
Owner unaware. Sold. 1 week
after bought motorcycle,
written contract didn’t mention
Seller of horse said horse was for stud
purposes and if anything wrong would
tell them. HELD: Relied upon this, term
so could sue.
If important then should
write it down.
HELD: Not term as time lapse
and not in written contract so
not important enough.