Belinda wants to buy a second-hand car and visits a number of car dealers before deciding to purchase an as new 1998 Ford Mustang from American Car Sales. The sales person, Jaxson, tells Belinda that the car was manufactured in 1998 and had only done 54,000 kms.

Three months later, Belinda has the Mustang serviced with her local mechanic who was a Mustang enthusiast. He comments on the fact that the car was in pretty good condition for a 1994 Mustang, though he was surprised that it had only done 54,000 kms. He would not have been surprised if it had done 100,000 kms.

Belinda makes further inquiries and discovers that the Mustang was in fact made in 1994 and she has paid about $5,000 more than the actual market value of the car. Belinda intends to approach American Car Sales about this issue.

Does Belinda have any contractual rights against American Car Sales?

Answer:

We remind Belinda of her right in accordance with Jaxson 's comments in this regard. The problem here is whether Jaxson 's representations or agreements are contract terms and whether they are conditions or promises. The car was built in 1998, which Jaxson had completed just 54,000 kilometers or registered. This is not just because she relied on it and had to sign the contract due to it and would thus consider it to have been a fair time. Therefore, the question is: is the word a condition or a guarantee?

A condition is a crucial concept of the contract that contributes to damages infringement. The declaration is not a requirement in this situation. This is neither an integral contract term nor a core contract term. Jaxson 's argument tends to be a guarantee, namely a non-essential or a minor phrase, whose violation only leads to damages. The oral promise or assurance was broken by Jaxson and a payout will be provided by Belinda for losses.

One may cite the principle in Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1 WLR 623 the court held that a false statement about mileage was held to be a warranty but in that case the seller as a car dealer who as an expert was expected to be making a promissory statement to a person relying on this important statement when deciding to buy the vehicle.Belinda may argue that the product is a warranty, but the breach of which allows Belinda to seek damages. The facts are different Belinda will seek an additional $5,000 in interest, which she paid above the real car market value. The advice is therefore to allow Belinda to sue Jaxson successfully for damages