Legal Case Summary
Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623
Other citation: [1965] 2 All ER 65. Court: Court of Appeal, 3 March 1965.
Established that a representation from an experienced party to an inexperienced party is likely to be interpreted as a contractual term rather than a mere representation.
Facts
The claimant, Dick Bentley, was aware of the defendant, Harold Smith’s, reputation as an expert in prestige cars and requested that the defendant keep an eye out for a well vetted and kept Bentley car, as he wished to purchase one. When the defendant obtained a Bentley, he informed the claimant and recommended it to him, stating that the vehicle had previously belonged to a German baron and had done only 20,000 miles since being fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox. The claimant subsequently purchased the vehicle, however faults soon developed. As per warranty, the defendant made some repairs, yet with the development of more faults it became apparent that the car had in fact travelled many more miles than originally believed since the replacement of parts. The claimant thus brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract and seeking damages. In response, the defendant asserted he had made an innocent misrepresentation.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issue
Whether the defendant’s statement as to the car’s mileage could be deemed a term of contract given his expertise as a prestige car dealer.
Held
The Court of Appeal dismissed the dealer’s appeal, upholding the finding that the statement was a contractual warranty and the £400 damages award. They determined that as the defendant had greater expertise, as a car dealer, the claimant was reasonably entitled to rely upon a representation from them regarding the subject of their expertise.
Whether a warranty was intended depended objectively on the parties’ words and conduct. A statement made to induce a contract, and actually relied upon in entering it, was prima facie evidence of a warranty. The maker could rebut that inference by showing that he was innocent of fault and that it would not be reasonable to bind him. Here, the dealer could have checked the car’s history with its makers but had not done so: his mileage statement had no reasonable foundation. Fraud was not established.
The dealer’s £60 repair counterclaim also failed because the defect had arisen during the separate twelve-month guarantee.
Source: Court of Appeal judgment on BAILII.
