The claimant bought a 1936 Douglasmotorcycle outfit in a part-exchange deal which required him to pay a balance of £30. The registration documents falsely stated that it was a 1942 model, as a previous owner had earlier modified the bike and had wrongly registered it as a 1942. The current seller had, during negotiations, mentioned the 1942 date, but the actual deal only took place several days later.
Judgmentedit
Even though the logbook clearly stated the bike's year as 1942, that statement was a mere representation and not a contractual term; nor was there any misrepresentation in this transaction. Furthermore, neither the owner who had made the false registration nor any of the intervening owners were liable to the current owner. The delay between the negotiations and the contract was a contributing factor to the decision.
Analysisedit
A term is an integral part of an agreement, whereas a representation is a pre-contractual statement which remains non-contractual unless and until it is adopted as a term. During negotiations, in the process of offer and acceptance, a representation may take the form of (i) an invitation to treat,[2] (ii) a request for information,[3] or (iii) a statement of intention;[4] but once a valid contract is formed these distinctions serve no further purpose.
routledge, mckay, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, january, . This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Routledge v McKay news newspapers books scholar JSTOR January 2021 Learn how and when to remove this template message Routledge v McKay 1 is a 1954 English contract law case concerning the difference between a term and a representation Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Analysis 4 See also 5 ReferencesFacts editThe claimant bought a 1936 Douglas motorcycle outfit in a part exchange deal which required him to pay a balance of 30 The registration documents falsely stated that it was a 1942 model as a previous owner had earlier modified the bike and had wrongly registered it as a 1942 The current seller had during negotiations mentioned the 1942 date but the actual deal only took place several days later Judgment editEven though the logbook clearly stated the bike s year as 1942 that statement was a mere representation and not a contractual term nor was there any misrepresentation in this transaction Furthermore neither the owner who had made the false registration nor any of the intervening owners were liable to the current owner The delay between the negotiations and the contract was a contributing factor to the decision Analysis editA term is an integral part of an agreement whereas a representation is a pre contractual statement which remains non contractual unless and until it is adopted as a term During negotiations in the process of offer and acceptance a representation may take the form of i an invitation to treat 2 ii a request for information 3 or iii a statement of intention 4 but once a valid contract is formed these distinctions serve no further purpose See also editEnglish contract law Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams EWCA Civ 5 Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith Motors Ltd 1965 EWCA Civ 2 Interpreting contracts in English lawReferences edit Routledge v McKay 1954 1 WLR 615 Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394 Clifton v Palumbo 1944 Re Fickus 1900 nbsp This case law article is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Routledge v McKay amp oldid 1158191955, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
