Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
In theory, whether a statement is to be regarded as a term of the contract or as a representation depends upon the intention of the parties. However, as a meaningful test, this has its drawbacks. By virtue of the fact that a dispute has arisen, there may be an indication that the parties have differing views on the importance to be attached to a particular statement and that there is therefore no common intention to be found. Nevertheless, the courts have developed a number of guidelines intended to assist in determining whether the parties intended a particular statement to take effect as a contractual promise or as a mere representation. Often, the parties will reduce their contract to writing, in which case, an obvious port of call is the written instrument. But it does not follow from this that only those statements contained in the contractual document are the terms of the contract. It is perfectly possible for an oral statement of some significance to be treated as a contractual term even though it does not appear in the final written version of the contract. This result may be achieved by the discovery of a collateral contract, namely, a contract the consideration for which is entry into the main contract. In Evans (J) & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Merzario (Andrea) Ltd, the plaintiffs
DOI link for In theory, whether a statement is to be regarded as a term of the contract or as a representation depends upon the intention of the parties. However, as a meaningful test, this has its drawbacks. By virtue of the fact that a dispute has arisen, there may be an indication that the parties have differing views on the importance to be attached to a particular statement and that there is therefore no common intention to be found. Nevertheless, the courts have developed a number of guidelines intended to assist in determining whether the parties intended a particular statement to take effect as a contractual promise or as a mere representation. Often, the parties will reduce their contract to writing, in which case, an obvious port of call is the written instrument. But it does not follow from this that only those statements contained in the contractual document are the terms of the contract. It is perfectly possible for an oral statement of some significance to be treated as a contractual term even though it does not appear in the final written version of the contract. This result may be achieved by the discovery of a collateral contract, namely, a contract the consideration for which is entry into the main contract. In Evans (J) & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Merzario (Andrea) Ltd, the plaintiffs
In theory, whether a statement is to be regarded as a term of the contract or as a representation depends upon the intention of the parties. However, as a meaningful test, this has its drawbacks. By virtue of the fact that a dispute has arisen, there may be an indication that the parties have differing views on the importance to be attached to a particular statement and that there is therefore no common intention to be found. Nevertheless, the courts have developed a number of guidelines intended to assist in determining whether the parties intended a particular statement to take effect as a contractual promise or as a mere representation. Often, the parties will reduce their contract to writing, in which case, an obvious port of call is the written instrument. But it does not follow from this that only those statements contained in the contractual document are the terms of the contract. It is perfectly possible for an oral statement of some significance to be treated as a contractual term even though it does not appear in the final written version of the contract. This result may be achieved by the discovery of a collateral contract, namely, a contract the consideration for which is entry into the main contract. In Evans (J) & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Merzario (Andrea) Ltd, the plaintiffs
ABSTRACT
In theory, whether a statement is to be regarded as a term of the contract or as a representation depends upon the intention of the parties.8 However, as a meaningful test, this has its drawbacks. By virtue of the fact that a dispute has arisen, there may be an indication that the parties have differing views on the importance to be attached to a particular statement and that there is therefore no common intention to be found. Nevertheless, the courts have developed a number of guidelines intended to assist in determining whether the parties intended a particular statement to take effect as a contractual promise or as a mere representation.
