In Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon, an experienced representative employed by Esso estimated that the likely throughput of petrol on a garage site would reach 200,000 gallons by the third year of operation. As a result of this estimate, the plaintiff was persuaded to enter into a tenancy agreement with Esso for a period of three years. In fact, the throughput never reached more than 78,000 gallons and the plaintiff gave notice to quit. In order to appease the plaintiff, Esso reduced his rent, but the plaintiff continued to lose money. Subsequently, Esso sought possession of the site, but the plaintiff counterclaimed for damages in respect of the representation which had induced him to enter into the contract. Since the facts forming the basis of the dispute occurred before 1967, the Misrepresentation Act did not apply, but it was alleged that there was either a breach of a collateral warranty or that the statement amounted to a negligent misstatement within the meaning of the rule in Hedley Byrne v Heller. Both claims succeeded in the Court of Appeal: Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon [1976] 1 QB 801, CA, p 817

DOI link for In Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon, an experienced representative employed by Esso estimated that the likely throughput of petrol on a garage site would reach 200,000 gallons by the third year of operation. As a result of this estimate, the plaintiff was persuaded to enter into a tenancy agreement with Esso for a period of three years. In fact, the throughput never reached more than 78,000 gallons and the plaintiff gave notice to quit. In order to appease the plaintiff, Esso reduced his rent, but the plaintiff continued to lose money. Subsequently, Esso sought possession of the site, but the plaintiff counterclaimed for damages in respect of the representation which had induced him to enter into the contract. Since the facts forming the basis of the dispute occurred before 1967, the Misrepresentation Act did not apply, but it was alleged that there was either a breach of a collateral warranty or that the statement amounted to a negligent misstatement within the meaning of the rule in Hedley Byrne v Heller. Both claims succeeded in the Court of Appeal: Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon [1976] 1 QB 801, CA, p 817

In Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon, an experienced representative employed by Esso estimated that the likely throughput of petrol on a garage site would reach 200,000 gallons by the third year of operation. As a result of this estimate, the plaintiff was persuaded to enter into a tenancy agreement with Esso for a period of three years. In fact, the throughput never reached more than 78,000 gallons and the plaintiff gave notice to quit. In order to appease the plaintiff, Esso reduced his rent, but the plaintiff continued to lose money. Subsequently, Esso sought possession of the site, but the plaintiff counterclaimed for damages in respect of the representation which had induced him to enter into the contract. Since the facts forming the basis of the dispute occurred before 1967, the Misrepresentation Act did not apply, but it was alleged that there was either a breach of a collateral warranty or that the statement amounted to a negligent misstatement within the meaning of the rule in Hedley Byrne v Heller. Both claims succeeded in the Court of Appeal: Esso Petroleum Ltd v Mardon [1976] 1 QB 801, CA, p 817