Ecay v Godfrey (1947): A Case Summary

Ecay v Godfrey

Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80 Lloyds Rep 286

Ecay v Godfrey (1947) is a notable case in contract law that illustrates the difference between a mere statement and a term of a contract. Here is a detailed description of the case:

Facts of the Case

Parties Involved: The plaintiff (Ecay) was the buyer, and the defendant (Godfrey) was the seller of a boat.

Context: The plaintiff was interested in purchasing a boat from the defendant. During the negotiations, the defendant told the plaintiff that the boat was “sound” and in good condition.

Advice: Despite this statement, the defendant also advised the plaintiff to have the boat surveyed/checked before finalizing the purchase.

Issue in Ecay v Godfrey

The central issue in the case was whether the defendant’s statement about the boat being “sound” constituted a term of the contract or was merely a representation.

Court’s Decision

The court held that the statement made by the defendant was not a term of the contract. Instead, it was considered a mere representation.

Reasoning: The fact that the defendant advised the plaintiff to get the boat surveyed implied that the statement about the boat being “sound” was not intended to be a binding term of the contract. By suggesting a survey, the defendant indicated that the statement was not meant to be taken as a guarantee or term but rather a preliminary assertion.

Contrast with Schawel v Reade

The outcome in Ecay v Godfrey contrasts with the case of Schawel v Reade [1913]. In Schawel v Reade, a statement made about the quality of a horse was held to be a term of the contract because of its significant importance and the context in which it was made. The buyer relied on the statement, which was made emphatically and without any qualification. In contrast, in Ecay v Godfrey, the suggestion to have a survey showed that the statement about the boat’s condition was not intended to be a definitive term of the contract.

References:


YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *