J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney [1970]: Speed Estimate

J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney [1970] HCA 6 is one of the leading cases in contract law. It concerns with examining the distinction between a representation and a collateral warranty.

Here are the details of the case:

Case Name: J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney

Citation: [1970] HCA 6; (1970) 119 CLR 435

Court: High Court of Australia

Date of Judgment: 18 March 1970

Judges: Barwick C.J., Kitto, Menzies, Owen, and Walsh JJ.

Areas of Law: Contract law – collateral warranty

Facts: J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney

Blakney entered into a contract with J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd for the construction of a motor cruiser.

The boat was to be fitted with a single principal diesel engine.

Prior to the contract, the J J Savage provided a detailed letter comparing various engine options. It stated:

“Estimated speed 15 M.P.H.” for the 4/53 GM diesel engine.

Relying on this, Blakney chose that engine setup and entered into the contract. However, the formal written contract did not include any speed warranty.

The boat did not achieve the expected speed, and Blakney sued for breach of warranty, claiming the speed estimate was a collateral warranty.

Issue

Whether the statement about the “estimated speed” of the boat constituted a collateral warranty under law?

High Court’s Decision

The High Court held that a collateral warranty requires a clear promissory intent (not just a representation or opinion).

The phrase “estimated speed 15 M.P.H.” was not a promise, but an expression of opinion based on calculations.

The statement by the seller must have been intended to be a binding promise. The intention to be legally bound is essential for collateral warranties.

Even though the buyer relied on it, reliance alone is insufficient to transform an estimate into a binding promise.

Important excepts from the case that reflect the reasoning:

“The question is whether there was a promise by the appellant that the boat would in fact attain the stated speed if powered by the stipulated engine…”

“…the only conclusion which will support a collateral warranty, namely, that the statement so relied on was promissory and not merely representational.” (at p442)

“He could have required the attainment of the speed to be inserted in the specification as a condition of the contract; or he could have sought from the appellant a promise – however expressed, whether as an assurance, guarantee, promise or otherwise – that the boat would attain the speed as a prerequisite to his ordering the boat; or he could be content to form his own judgment as to the suitable power unit for the boat relying upon the opinion of the appellant of whose reputation and experience in the relevant field he had, as the trial judge found, a high regard. Only the second course would give rise to a collateral warranty.” (at p443)

Ratio Decidendi:

Not every pre-contractual statement, even if relied upon by the buyer, will amount to a collateral warranty unless it has clear promissory intent.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1970/6.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968)
• A Case Summary of Couchman v Hill [1947]
• A Case Summary of Varley v Whipp [1900]