Where somebody warrants something, the person giving the warranty binds himself or herself to it. Lord Denning suggested that the test of an interpretation was what an intelligent bystander would reasonably infer contracting parties had agreed upon. He said: The material distinction here is between a statement which is a term of the contract and a statement which is only an innocent misrepresentation. This distinction is best expressed by the ruling of Holt CJ, ‘Was it intended as a warranty or not?’, using the word ‘warranty’ there in its ordinary English meaning: because it gives the exact shade of meaning that is required. It is something to which a man must be taken to bind himself.
In applying this test, however, some misunderstanding has arisen by the use of the word ‘intended’. It is sometimes supposed that the tribunal must look into the minds of the parties to see what they themselves intended. That is a mistake. Lord Moulton made it quite clear in Heilbut, Symons and Co v Buckleton . . that ‘The intention of the parties can only be deduced from the totality of the evidence . .’ The question whether a warranty was intended depends on the conduct of the parties, on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts. If an intelligent bystander would reasonably infer that a warranty was intended, that will suffice. And this, when the facts are not in dispute, is a question of law.’
Judges:
Denning, Hodson, Morris LJJ
Citations:
[1957] 1 WLR 370, [1956] EWCA Civ 5, [1957] 1 All ER 325
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Heilbut Symons and Co v Buckleton HL 11-Nov-1912
In an action of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, the plaintiff founded on a conversation between himself and the defendants’ representative. In this conversation the plaintiff said-‘I understand that you are bringing . .
Cited by:
Cited – Drake v Thos Agnew and Sons Limited QBD 8-Mar-2002
The claimant sought the return of money paid by him for a painting. He said it had been sold to his agent as by ‘Van Dyck’ but subsequently proved not to be so. He had employed an agent to acquire the painting, but the agent had not disclosed to him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183434
