Contract Law - Distinction between contractual terms and mere representations
The legal effect of a contractual term1 differs from that of a mere representation2; accordingly, it's necessary to determine into which of these two categories fall statements made by the parties during negotiations leading to a binding contract3. Basically, the problem is one of determining the intention of the parties as evidenced by their words4 and conduct5, so that no general principle of interpretation can be universally true6. Because, however, the intention of the parties seldom clearly appears, the courts have had regard to any one or more of a number of factors for attributing an intention. These factors should be regarded as valuable, though not decisive7, tests.
The factors taken into account by the courts are as follows:
- (1) if only a brief period of time elapses between the making of the statement and the formation of the contract, the court may be disposed to hold that the statement is a term of the contract8;
- (2) where the party to whom the statement is made makes it clear that he regards the matter as so important that he would not contract without the assurance being given, that is evidence of an intention of the parties that the statement is to be a term of the contract9;
- (3) where the party making the statement is stating a fact which is or should be within his own knowledge and of which the other party is ignorant, that is evidence that the statement is meant to be a term of the contract10;
- (4) where, subsequent to negotiations, the parties enter into a written contract and that contract doesn't contain the statement in question, that may point towards the statement being a mere representation11, though there have been cases where it has been found that such a preliminary statement constitutes a collateral contract12;
- (5) where the party making the statement suggests that the listener takes an independent survey or opinion, that may show that no warranty was intended13;
- (6) it has been said that the maker of a statement can rebut an inference of warranty if he can show that he was innocent of fault in making it, and that it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to hold him bound by it14.
Finally, in modern times a pre-contractual statement may amount to both a misrepresentation and a contractual term17; and it may therefore be necessary to consider the position on both alternatives18. To the extent that there's now a statutory right of action for certain misrepresentations, this may render it less pressing to prove that a misrepresentation amounts to a contractual promise19.
To view the rest of this page, you must be logged in. Please log in or register - it's free, it takes less than 30 seconds and your details are safe.
Forgot your password? Lost passwordNot yet registered? Register now - it's free and takes less than 30 seconds!
Home