Providing resources for studying law
Custom Search
   Home      Routledge v Mackay
Routledge v Mckay [1954] 1 WLR 615 Court of Appeal

The claimant acquired a Douglas BSA motorcycle and sidecar by exchanging another motorcycle and paying £30. The registration documents stated that it was a 1942 model and this is what the defendant stated the year of the motorcycle to be when the claimant came to look at it. The motorcycle was in fact a 1936 model but had been modified and re-registered by a previous owner. The purchaser went away to think about it and then returned a few days later a written agreement was produced to the effect of the exchange which ended with the words "It is understood that when the £30 is paid over that this transaction is closed".


The statement was a representation and not a contractual term. The registration document was not prima facie evidence of a contractual term. Neither party was an expert, and there was a lapse of time between the making of the statement and entering the contract giving the claimant the opportunity to check the statement. Furthermore there was no mention of the date in the written agreement and the words of the agreement stating the transaction is considered closed excluded any possible collateral warranty.
Back to lecture outline on contractual term or representation in contract law