J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1078
Oral promise overrode existing written contract conditions
Facts
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.
Issues
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.
Decision/Outcome
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
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1078. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as an established authority on collateral contracts and the enforceability of oral promises made alongside written contractual terms. The underlying legal principles — that an oral promise may be binding as a collateral contract even where standard written conditions exist, and that such a promise may override or preclude reliance on exemption clauses in the written terms — remain accurate statements of English contract law. The reference to Mendelssohn v Normand [1970] 1 QB 177 is also still valid authority. No subsequent statutory changes or later Court of Appeal or Supreme Court decisions have materially altered the position described. Readers should note that the broader area of exemption clauses is now substantially governed by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and, in consumer contexts, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, neither of which affects the accuracy of this summary as a statement of the case itself.
