Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
[1965] 1 W.L.E.
623
C. A.
1965
BlDLEY
' V.
TAYLOR.
Russell L.J.
Hatfield
C. J . E .
[COURT OF APPEAL.]
* D I C K B E N T L E Y P B O D U C T I O N S L T D . AND ANOTHER V.
H A K O L D S M I T H (MOTOBS) L T D .
C. A.
ig65
Mar. 2, 8
[ P l a i n t N o . S. 5 4 3 . ]
Lord Denning
M.R., Danckwerts and
Sale of GoodsWarrantyCollateral
warrantyRepresentation
made Salmon L.JJ.
with intention of, and inducing, other party to act on itNo
reasonable foundation for representationSale
of motor car
Statement of mileageSubsequent ascertainment of history of car
supporting inference of substantially greater mileageMaker of
624
[1965] 1 W.L.E.
C. A.
1965
DlOK
BENTLEY
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
v.
HAROLD
SMITH
(MOTORS)
LTD.
The plaintiff B., who was a customer of the defendant oar dealers
and had told them that he wanted to buy a well-vetted oar (a
'' quality '' British car, the history of which could be obtained
from its makers), was told by S. on behalf of the dealers that he had
found such a car. B. inspected it on the morning of January 23,
1960. The speedometer showed a mileage of 20,000. S., during the
inspection, stated, inter alia, that the car had done only 20,000
miles since being fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox ; that
the price was 1,850; and that he would guarantee it for 12 months.
In the afternoon B. brought his wife to see the car and repeated to
her in S.'s presence the statement by S. that it had done only 20,000
miles. After taking it for a short trial run, B. bought and paid for
the car. Troubles began almost at once and continued throughout
and beyond the guarantee period.
In an action by B. claiming damages for, inter alia, breach of
the warranty as to mileage, the dealers, while admitting a statement
as to mileage, claimed that it was made in the belief that it was
true, and denied that it was in law a warranty or that B. was
induced thereby to buy the car.
The county court judge, having inferred from the history of the
car supplied by the makers and other evidence that the mileage done
was nearer 100,000, held that the statement as to the mileage was a
warranty and that it had been broken; and he awarded damages to
the plaintiff.
On appeal by the defendants:
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the representation as to the
mileage was a warranty binding on the seller, for, tested by what
the intelligent bystander would infer from the conduct of the parties,
it was a statement, made by a seller in a position to find out, but
not having found out, the facts, in the course of negotiations for a
contract, which was intended to, and did, induce the buyer to enter
into the contract; and as the seller had not rebutted that inference
by showing that it was an innocent misrepresentation and that he
ought not to be bound by it, he was in breach of the warranty, and
liable in damages.
Oscar Chess Ltd. v. Williams [1957] 1 W.L.R. 370; [1957] 1 All
E.R. 325, C.A. distinguished.
APPEAL from Judge Herbert, sitting at Westminster county
court.
A company, Dick Bentley Productions L t d . , and Charles
Walter Bentley (known as " Dick Bentley ") brought an action
in the county court, claiming damages against the defendant
company, Harold Smith (Motors) L t d . I t was agreed t h a t the
effective plaintiff was the individual, Bentley. B y his amended
particulars of claim he alleged t h a t by an agreement partly in
writing and partly oral, made in J a n u a r y , 1960, between Bentley
and one Harold Smith, acting for the defendants, the defendants
had agreed to sell and the plaintiff to buy a Park Ward drop-head
coupe Bentley motor car for the sum of 1,850. By paragraph
2 it was alleged t h a t Smith had represented or alternatively
warranted t h a t " (c) the said car had throughout most of its life
" been owned by Bolls Boyce L t d . and loaned by t h a t company
" to a German baron and had had only one owner since it arrived
[1965] 1 W . L . E .
"back in England in 1959 "; and " (d) the said car had covered
" only 20,000 miles since the fitting of " a replacement engine
and ancillary parts and gearbox. The plaintiff claimed that, relying on those representations or warranties he bought the motor car,
but that, contrary to the representations or warranties, the car was
defective and in bad condition. By their defence, the defendants
admitted that Smith had stated, inter alia, that " to the best of
" his belief the vehicle had done 20,000 miles since the replace" ment engine and ancillary parts and gearbox, that most of its
" life it had been owned by Eolls Eoyce Ltd. and that it had been
" lent to a German baron "; but it was denied that the statements
were in law either representations or warranties, and it was
claimed that they were made honestly and in the belief that they
were true. Further, it was claimed that if the statements did
amount to representations or warranties, the plaintiffs did not
rely on them, and were not by reason thereof induced to purchase
the motor car. The defendants also counterclaimed on matters
not relevant to the present report, which is confined to the
question of representation and warranty.
The facts, substantially as stated by Lord Denning M.R. and
found by the county court judge, were as follows: Bentley had
been dealing with Smith for a couple of years, and had told Smith
that he was on the look-out for a well-vetted Bentley car. In
January, 1960, Smith found one and bought it for 1,500 from a
firm in Leicester. He wrote to Bentley and said: " I have just
" purchased a Park Ward power-operated hood convertible. It is
" one of the nicest cars we have had in for quite a long time."
Smith had told Bentley earlier that he was in a position to find
out the history of cars. It appeared' that with a car of that
quality the makers kept a complete biography of it.
Bentley went to see the car. Smith told him that a German
baron had had this car. He said that it had been fitted at one
time with a replacement engine and gearbox, and had done 20,000
miles only since it had been so fitted. The speedometer on the
car showed only 20,000 miles. Smith said that the price was
1,850, and that he would guarantee the car for 12 months, ineluding parts and labour. That was on the morning of January
23. In the afternoon Bentley took his wife over to see the car.
He repeated to his wife in Smith's presence what Smith had told
him in the morning; and in particular that Smith said it had done
only 20,000 miles since it had been refitted with a replacement
engine and gearbox. Bentley took it for a. short run. He bought
the car for 1,850, gave his cheque, and the sale was concluded.
The car was a considerable disappointment to Bentley. He
took it back to Smith from time to time. A good deal of work
was done oa it during the first 12 months' guarantee period.
Further work was done on the car outside the guarantee period,
the details of which are relevant only to the counterclaim. Thereafter the car was a good deal better; but it had given the plaintiff
a lot of trouble, and eventually he brought the present action.
VOL.
44
625
C. A.
1965
DICK
BENTLEX
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
v.
HAROLD
SMITH
(MOTORS)
LTD.
626
[1965] 1 W . L . B .
C. A.
1965
DICK
BENTLEY
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
HAROLD
SMITH
(MOTORS)
LTD.
T H E W E E K L Y LAW BEPOKTS
A.
T H E W E E K L Y LAW BEPOETS
[1965] 1 W . L . E .
was against the weight of the evidence; and (3) that the judge
misdirected himself in holding that Smith " stated a fact that
" should be within his knowledge."
Colin Ross-Munro for the defendants.
Graham Eyre for the plaintiff.
[1954] 1
G. A.
1965
DICK
BENTLEY
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
v.
627
375;
HABOLD
SMITH
(MOTOBS)
LTD.
628
[1965] 1 W . L . E .
C. A.
1965
DICK
BENTLEY
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
v.
HAROLD
SMITH
(MOTORS)
LTD.
Lord Denning
M.R.
T H E W E E K L Y LAW REPORTS
[1965] 1 W.L.K.
629
C, A.
1965
DICK
BENTLEX
PRODUCTIONS
LTD.
o.
HAROLD
SMITH
(MOTORS)
LTD.
Lord Denning
M.R.
Solicitors: Goodman,
with
costs.
& Co.
M. M. H .
[CHANCERY
DIVISION.]
* S. W . S T B A N G E L T D . v. MANN.
1965
Jan. 26,
27, 28, 29;
[1964 S. No. 2819.]
Feb. 1, 2,
3, 26.
Restraint of Trade Master and servant Bookmaker's manager
Stamp J.
Names and addresses of all customers known to employerCovenant
not to carry on the business of bookmaker within 12 miles of
[.Reported by Miss A. F. RICKETTS, Barrister-at-Law.]