ABSTRACT
Lord Denning MR: The first point is whether this representation, namely that the car had done twenty thousand miles only since it had been fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox, was an innocent misrepresentation (which does not give rise to damages), or whether it was a warranty. It was said by Holt CJ and repeated in Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton: ‘An affirmation at the time of the sale is a warranty, provided it appear on evidence to be so intended.’ But that word ‘intended’ has given rise to difficulties. I endeavoured to explain in Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams that 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. What conduct, then? What words and behaviour, lead to the inference of a warranty?
