Distinction between representations and terms Case Couchman v Hill (1947) Legal implication/ Ratio The statement that

heifer was not in calf was held to be a term of the contract because of the importance attached to it by the claimant. The claimants, who were car dealers, were in at least as good a position as the defendant to know the true age of the car. The defendants statement as to the age of car was not a term of the contract but a mere representation. Defendants statement as to the car mileage was a Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) term of the contract, the defendants, being car dealers, were in a better position that the claimant to know whether the statement was true. The claimant was told by the defendant: You need not look for anything, the horse is perfectly sound. If there was anything the matter with this horse I should tell you. In reliance upon this statement the claimant bought the horse without examining it. It was held that the defendants statement was a term of contract.

Dick Bentley v Smith motors (1965)

Schawel v Reade (1913)

Incorporation of written terms Case LEstrange v Graucob (1934) Legal implication/ Ratio The claimant bought an automatic slot machine

from the defendants. She signed an order form (If the plaintiff signs a document, it will which contained a clause which excluded liability automatically form part of contract, even if he has for all express and implied warranties. not read the document.) Judgement was given that defendant had excluded their liability by virtue of the exclusion clause which was incorporated into the contract by the claimants signature.

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co (1951) Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) Chappleton v Barry UDC (1940) The claimant hired a deck chair from the defendants. On paying his money he was given a (Contained in a contractual document, reasonable ticket which, unknown to him, contained a number person would assume to contain contractual terms.) of conditions, including an exclusion clause. It was held that they could not rely on the exclusion clause because it was contained in a mere receipt which was not intended to have contractual effect. Olley v Marlborough Court (1949) A notice in the bedroom of a hotel which purported

to exempt the hotel proprietors from any liability (Unsiged document before, at time the contract for articles lost or stolen from the hotel, was held entered) not to be incorporated into a contract with a guest, whose furs were stolen from her bedroom, because the notice was not seen by the guest until after the contract had been concluded at the hotel reception desk. Thompson v LMC Railway (1930) (Reasonable and sufficient notice) An exclusion clause contained in a railway time-table was held to be validly incorporated despite the fact that the claimant was illiterate and therefore unable to read the clause.