Facts: Blakney entered a contract to buy a motor cruiser from JJ Savage. Before agreeing to buy the boat, Blakney asked Savage for advice about alternative engines. Savage wrote back setting out the details and estimated performance of different engines. Relying on this advice Blakney chose a particular engine. Its performance was less than expected.
Issue: Although the contract for the purchase of the boat contained no terms guaranteeing its level of performance, was there a collateral (additional) contract to this effect?
Decision: There was no collateral contract.
Reason: Blakney did not seek a promise from Savage about the level of performance. The evidence showed that he had asked for advice, but had thereafter relied on his own judgment in choosing an engine. In the circumstances what Savage had said amounted only to an expression of opinion. The court said (at [11], [13]) that a collateral warranty could be established only if:
"the statement so relied on was promissory and not merely representational... That the statement actually made by the appellant was ...upon a matter of importance to the respondent can be conceded; that the respondent was intended to act upon it, and that he did act upon it, is clearly made out. But those facts do not warrant the conclusion that the statement was itself promissory."