- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- The topic ‘Routledge v McKay 1954’ is closed to new replies.
OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for March and June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>
Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA LW Exams › Routledge v McKay 1954
The facts: The defendant, in discussing the possible sale of his motorcycle to the claimant, said on 23 October that the cycle was a 1942 model; he took this information from the registration document. On 30 October the parties made a written contract which did not refer to the year of the model and the purchaser had not indicated that the age of the cycle was of critical importance to him. The actual date was 1930.
Decision: The buyer’s claim for damages failed. The reference to a 1942 model was a representation made prior to the contract
Sir here why the buyer’s claim for damages failed? Although we know that breach of representation results in damages and/or rescission.
This should explain the apparent anomaly …
“Misrepresentation Act 1967 … An Act to amend the law relating to innocent misrepresentations and to amend sections 11 and 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.”
OK?