Facts: Williams' mother owned a second-hand Morris Minor motor car which she believed was a 1948 model. In 1955, at his mother's request, Williams took the car to a used-car dealer to trade it in. The documents that Williams showed to the dealer contained a statement that the car was a 1948 model. In fact it was a 1939 model. When the dealer discovered the true age of the car, he sued Williams for breach of contract. The dealer claimed that the statement about the age of the car in the document was a promise and was intended to be contractually binding.
Issue: Was the statement in the documents regarding the age of the car a term of the contract?
Decision: Denning and Hodson LJJ held that the statement as to the age of the car was a mere representation rather than a contractually binding promise.
Reason: Because the dealer had special knowledge of and expertise in cars and Williams did not, it could not be inferred that the parties intended Williams' statement to be a legally binding promise. A dealer would be expected to verify the age of a vehicle if he was in any doubt.
Note: Morris LJ dissented, saying the statement as to age was vitally important and therefore became a term of the contract. The different views of the judges in this case show that it is not always easy to decide when a statement is intended to be legally binding as a term of the contract.