Andrews Bros (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd [1934] 1 KB 17
Exemption Clauses, Sale of Goods Act 1979
Facts
The claimants and defendants entered into an agreement which stipulated that the claimants would be sole dealers of the claimant’s cars (specifically, new Singer cars) for a designated area and further, that the claimants would purchase a specified number of such cars. The contract contained a clause which stated that all cars sold by the Defendants were subject to the terms of a warranty which was laid out in a Schedule to the contract. Further, that clause excluded all conditions, warranties and liabilities which are implied by statute, common law or otherwise. The warranty in the Schedule applied to new Singer cars and placed an obligation on the defendant to repair or replace any fault on such a car within twelve months of delivery if the fault was due to the materials or the workmanship of the defendant. The claimants ordered a new Singer car. It was delivered and accepted by them, but it was not actually a new car since it had run significant mileage. Upon discovering this, the claimant tried to reject it. The Defendant argued that the exclusion clause protected him since it excluded the requirements of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.13, that goods must be as they were described.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether the clause could effectively exclude liability in the way argued by the defendants.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the “new Singer car” was not an implied term but rather an express one; the defendants had therefore breached the contract by not delivering a “new Singer car” and the exemption clause could not be relied upon.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Andrews Bros (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd [1934] 1 KB 17 and the legal principles it established regarding exemption clauses and express terms. One point to note for accuracy: the article refers to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 throughout. The 1979 Act was not in force at the time of the decision (the relevant statute then was the Sale of Goods Act 1893), but the 1979 Act is the current consolidating legislation and the equivalent provision (s.13, correspondence with description) remains in force. The core principle from the case — that an exemption clause cannot exclude liability for breach of an express term unless it does so in clear and unambiguous language — remains good law. The broader legal landscape for exemption clauses is now also shaped by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and, for consumer contracts, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, neither of which applies to the facts of this case but which students should be aware of when considering how exemption clause law has developed since 1934.
