Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325

The Case Facts by Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325⁣

⁣The mother of Williams owned a Morris Minor motor car, which she bought second-hand. The mother did not exactly know the model of the car and believed that it was a 1948 model.⁣

⁣Williams' mother requested that the car be brought to a car dealer that trades used cars. Williams' mother asked to trade the car. ⁣

⁣Williams showed the dealer the documents for the car. The document stated that the model of the car is from 1939. However, the dealer found out the true age of the car, which was 1948.⁣

⁣The dealer sued Williams for breaching the contract. Specifically, the dealer stated that the 1939 model stated in the document was a promise and that its intention was to contractually bind Williams and the car dealer. ⁣

⁣

Issue of the Case⁣

⁣The issue in Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325 was whether the age of the car specified in the contract was a term of the contract. ⁣

⁣

Decision of the Case⁣

⁣The decision in the case, held by Denning and Hodson LJJ, was that the age of the car stated in the document was a mere representation. It was not a contractually binding term. ⁣

⁣

Importance of the Case⁣

⁣The case is important in classifying what are "conditions" or "warranties" in the terms of a contract. ⁣

⁣Specifically, the case identifies that "conditions" are "fundamental" terms in a contract or "to the root" of the contract. ⁣

⁣"Condition" is a term or word that properly describes the terms of the contract, which the party for whose benefit the term was included would not have entered the agreement.