The Routledge v McKay case [1954] provides an important example of how courts determine whether a statement made prior to the formation of a contract is considered a term of that contract or merely a representation. Given below are the facts and judgment.
Facts (Routledge v McKay)
In Routledge v McKay, the parties involved were private individuals negotiating the sale of a motorbike. The defendant, drawing from the registration book, informed the plaintiff that the motorbike was made in 1942. This information was provided orally during their discussions. A week later, a written contract was drawn up for the sale of the motorbike, but it did not include any reference to the motorbike’s year of manufacture. After the contract was concluded, it was discovered that the motorbike was actually a 1930 model. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the motorbike’s true age, claimed that the year of manufacture was a term of the contract and sought to enforce this as a contractual term.
Judgment
The court held that the statement regarding the motorbike’s year of manufacture was not a term of the contract. There was a significant time lapse (about a week) between the making of the statement and the conclusion of the contract. The court observed that the longer the interval between the statement and the contract, the less likely it is that the statement was intended to be a contractual term.
Furthermore, the written contract, which was concluded after the statement was made, did not mention the year of manufacture. The absence of this information in the written contract indicated that the parties did not regard the statement as a binding term.
References:
- https://www.cienotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Contract-Law-by-Catherine-Elliott-and-Frances-Quinn-7th-Edition.pdf
- https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Routledge-v-Mackay.php
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: