Routledge v McKay Case - Essay Example

This case Routledge v McKay relates to the exchange of a motorbike and sidecar with another motorbike along with the payment of thirty pounds. The Douglas BSA motorbike and sidecar in question were actually manufactured in 1931 but had been reconditioned by a previous owner to indicate that they were a 1941 model. The documents of the motorbike showed that it had been registered on 9th September 1941. The motorbike and the sidecar had been sold on a number of occasions before but the issue of manufacturing date had not been looked into detail.

The seller had told the buyer of the motorbike and sidecar on October 23rd that the year of manufacturing was 1941. The buyer went away for considering his options and returned on October 30th to finalise the purchase. The contract for the sale was drawn up in writing on October the 30th but it did not mention anything about the year of manufacturing. Moreover, the written agreement ended with the contractual term that paying thirty pounds meant the end of the transaction. The buyer later found out that the motorbike had actually been manufactured in 1931 and not in 1941 as the documents expounded.

The claimant (being the buyer) later went to court to appeal against possible fraud and warranty issues. The claimant’s stance was that the seller had defrauded him by telling him that the year of manufacturing was 1931. In addition, the claimant suggested that he had been told of the year of manufacturing although it was never mentioned on the written agreement and that this amounted to a contractual term. . Reasoning of the Judges Denning L. J. If a vehicle is sold from one person to another, the date of manufacturing is typically based on the date listed in the documents of the vehicle.

It is common for this date to be used for reference when transacting the vehicle again. If the first seller of the vehicle delivers a statement regarding the date of manufacturing, he can be held responsible since the vehicle originates from him. However, in later transactions the sellers of the vehicle have no option but to reference the vehicle’s documents. In such cases, the sellers of the vehicle may pass on the date of manufacturing listed on the documents to the buyer. In case that a dispute arises, the sellers and buyer in between the first seller and the last buyer will be considered to be affected by innocent misrepresentation.

For the current case, claims of fraud against the original vendor were barred due to statute so no such claims were filed by any party. Evershed M. R. The written memorandum (or the contract) between the last seller and buyer was admitted to the court as evidence although it lacked the required stamp under Section 14 of the Stamp Act of 1891. The other judges agreed to this stance. The honourable judge cited the Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton3 case and referred to the speech made by Lord Moulton.

It was contended that a written statement could for part of a collateral contract but each such contract would have to have its own character for legal recognition. With reference to the Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton case, it was held that innocent misrepresentation could only be tried under warranty if the evidence presented held any such contractual term. Mere representation alone could not be taken as cause enough to