Oscar Chess v Williams  1 WLR 370:
The claimant bought a car from the defendant for £290. The cost of the car, £290, was dependent on its model. The defendant, relying on the model of the car contained in its registration books, informed the claimant that the car was a 1948 model. The claimant later discovered that the car was a 1939 model, making it worth £175 instead of the £290 the claimant paid. The information on the model of the car, unbeknownst to the defendant, was modified by the previous holder.
At the trial court, it was held that the defendant’s information on the age of the car constituted a term of the purchase contract. The defendant appealed.
1. Whether or not the defendant’s representation on the age of the car constituted a term of the purchase contract.
1. That the defendant’s representation on the model of the car did not constitute a term of the purchase contract.
The court held that since the defendant did not have expert knowledge of the car and only relied on the registration books to obtain knowledge on the model of the car, an innocent bystander cannot infer that the defendant intended to bind himself so as to warrant that it was a 1948 model. Further, that a reasonable person would not expect the defendant, who has no experience in the car industry, to guarantee that his statement about the model of the car was true.