Search results
Routledge v McKay. Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Romer. (Fifth Party). MR J. S. WATSON (instructed "by Messrs Ranger, Burton & Frost, agents for Messrs G. P. Lees & Son, Birkenhead) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant (Fifth Party). MR F. D. PATERSON (instructed by Messrs Kinch & Richardson, agents for Messrs Percy Hughes & Roberts ...
Routledge v McKay explained. Routledge v McKay is a 1954 English contract law case, concerning the difference between a term and a representation. Facts. The claimant bought a 1936 Douglas motorcycle outfit in a part-exchange deal which required him to pay a balance of £30. The registration documents falsely stated that it was a 1942 model, as ...
Routledge v Mckay [1954] 1 W.L.R. 615 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The document discusses a case involving the sale of a 1930 Douglas motor-bicycle that was reconditioned and had a registration book falsely stating it was a late 1941 or 1942 model.
The amount of time between the statement and the formation of the contract can also be important. The longer the gap between the two the less likely it is to be a term (Routledge v Mckay (1954) (CoA)). Routledge bought a 1930 Douglas motorcycle from Mckay, which had been reconditioned and sold a few times previously.
Home. Routledge v Mackay. Routledge v Mckay [1954] 1 WLR 615 Court of Appeal. The claimant acquired a Douglas BSA motorcycle and sidecar by exchanging another motorcycle and paying £30. The registration documents stated that it was a 1942 model and this is what the defendant stated the year of the motorcycle to be when the claimant came to ...
Routledge v McKay 1954. This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by MikeLittle. The facts: The defendant, in discussing the possible sale of his motorcycle to the claimant, said on 23 October that the cycle was a 1942 model; he took this information from the registration document.
• In Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 All ER 855, the plaintiff and the defendant negotiated the sale of a motorcycle belonging to the defendant. On October 23, the defendant notified the plaintiff regarding the model of the motorcycle, which was said to be a 1942 model based on the registration book.
