(a) That's wrong. This question involves the contents of a contract, and in particular, the relative importance of terms.

The third alternative answer (c) should be discounted because it is simply wrong. Although courts sometimes choose to treat terms as innominate rather than categorising them as conditions or warranties, this is not something that is made necessary by the known facts of this case.

That leaves the question whether any promise made by Ben was a condition or a warranty. The test to be applied is laid down in case law. In Associated Newspapers v Bancks the court laid down that a term of a contract will be treated as a condition if it appears from the general nature of the contract, or from particular terms in the contract, that the promise in question is of such importance to the promisee that they would not have entered into the contract unless assured of at least substantial performance of that promise, and this ought to have been apparent to the promissor.

In the present case, it is likely that this test is not satisfied. The contract is for standard bottling jars, and there is nothing in the contract as a whole, or in any particular terms, to indicate that the percentage content of recycled glass was of fundamental importance to Astrid, or that any such importance would have been obvious to Ben. In particular, since Astrid only says she would 'prefer' jars with recycled glass suggests that Ben would not have been aware that this matter was of particular importance to her.

Accordingly, it is likely that any promise made in this regard would be treated as a warranty rather than a condition and (b) is the best answer.