Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

J Evans and Son v Andrea

332 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1078

Oral promise overrode existing written contract conditions


The plaintiffs imported machines from Italy to England. The defendants were their forwarding agents. In terms of the contractual arrangements between the parties, the defendants had complete freedom regarding the transport of the goods to England. The defendants proposed a change in the method of transportation and gave the plaintiff an oral assurance that the machines would be shipped in containers carried under deck. No written provision was made for this change. One of the machines was packed on deck (rather than under deck) and was lost at sea.


The plaintiff sought damages. The defendants denied liability. At first instance, it was held that the oral assurance was not a legally binding warranty which could operate collaterally to the contract.


The Court of Appeal held that the oral assurance to ship future goods under deck constituted an enforceable contractual promise. This oral promise overrode the standard contract conditions because the promise was made in order to induce the plaintiffs to agree to the goods being carried in containers. Furthermore, the defendants were unable to rely on any exemptions in the written contractual terms. The Court referred to numerous authorities in which oral promises had been held binding despite the existence of written exempting conditions (e.g. Mendelssohn v Normand [1970] 1 QB 177). Therefore, because the defendants had promised to ensure that the goods would be shipped in containers which were stored under deck and this promise was broken by shipping the goods in containers on deck, they were liable for the loss. The plaintiff’s appeal was accordingly allowed.

268 words

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles