Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965]

Case Name: Dick Bentley Productions Ltd & Anor v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965]

• Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
• Judges: Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Salmon LJ
• Date of Judgment: 3 March 1965
• Citation: [1965] EWCA Civ 2; [1965] 1 WLR 623; [1965] 2 All ER 65
• Areas of Law: Misrepresentation, Warranty, Pre-contractual statements

Facts: Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith

Mr. Bentley, associated with Dick Bentley Productions, purchased a Bentley car from Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd for £1,850. The dealer, Mr. Smith, claimed the car had only done 20,000 miles since being fitted with a new engine and gearbox. This representation was key to Mr. Bentley’s decision to purchase the car.

After purchase, the car developed multiple mechanical problems, and it was later discovered that the 20,000-mile claim was false — the car had likely done close to 100,000 miles.

Key Legal Issue

Was the dealer’s statement about the mileage a mere innocent misrepresentation or a contractual warranty?

Court’s Judgment (Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith)

The Court of Appeal held that the statement was a warranty, not just an innocent misrepresentation.

The court reasoned that the key test is whether a reasonable bystander would infer that the statement was intended as a binding promise.

Since the dealer was in a better position to know or verify the truth, and the statement was made to induce the contract, it amounted to a warranty.

The buyer relied on the statement; thus, there was a breach of warranty when it turned out to be false.

Damages of £400 were awarded.

Quotes from the Case

“Looking at the cases once more, as we have done so often, it seems to me that if a representation is made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it, and actually inducing him to act upon it, by entering into the contract, that is prima facie ground for inferring that it was intended as a warranty.”

“Here we have a dealer, Mr. Smith, who was in a position to know, or at least to find out, the history of the car. He could get it by writing to the makers. He did not do so. Indeed, it was done later. When the history of this car was examined, his statement turned out to be quite wrong. He ought to have known better. There was no reasonable foundation for it.”

(By Lord Denning MR)

Significance

This case, alongside Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams, illustrates the distinction between representations and warranties and introduces an objective test for determining whether a pre-contractual statement becomes a contractual term.

You can refer to the full text of the case here:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1965/2.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Limited
• Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [1998]: Expectation Loss
• Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 14