Search results
May 29, 2020 · 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersRoutledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 (UK Caselaw)
Aug 8, 2019 · In Routledge v McKay 1954 , two weeks passed between the statements was made and the bought of the bike, the court therefore held that the statement was merely a representation, not a term. In the scenario, the time has been specified by the words ‘during negotiations’, though not very obvious.
Jan 16, 2009 · Evershed, M.R. in Routledge v. McKay [1954] 1 Google Scholar W.L.R. 622 seems to suggest that those terms must always be known at the time of the collateral promise; but this seems unnecessary if the collateral contract is “unilateral,” and the consideration executed.
⇒ If the statement was made a long time before the contract was finalised the less likely it is a term e.g. Routledge v McKay [1954] Incorporation of a term ⇒ If a statement is identified as a term it is only binding if it forms part of the contract (incorporated)
term, see e.g. Bannerman v. White (1861). • Timing of statement – Generally, the more time between statement and conclusion of contract, the less likely is statement to be held a term of contract. See e.g. Routledge v. McKay (1954). Timing factor is point of departure only. If statement is otherwise strong and important then
Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615. The defendant stated that a motor cycle, the subject matter of the proposed sale, was a 1942 model. In the written contract, signed a week later, no mention was made of the date of the model.
1. The parole evidence rule: Where the contract has been put into writing only the terms included in the written document are terms any verbal statements will be representations. 2. Relative expertise: If the representor has the greater knowledge, it is more likely to be a contractual term. Conversely if the representee has the greater ...
