Search results
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.
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.
Routledge v McKay is a 1954 English contract law case, concerning the difference between a term and a representation.
Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615. Material Facts: The claimant entered negotiations with the defendant for the acquisition of a motorcycle. Although the motorcycle was actually a 1936 model, the claimant was orally informed by the defendant that the motorcycle was a 1942 model.
Routledge v McKay & Ors. Smart Summary (Beta) Facts: The registration books or log books showed that a motor cycle combination was a late 1941 or 1943 model. Mr Mawson, who had been informed by the makers that it was earlier than that by some years, sold the motorcycle to Mr Ashgrove.
What is Routledge v McKay? Routledge v McKay is a 1954 English contract law case, concerning the difference between a term and a representation.
Court of Appeal. On 23 October the seller of a motor cycle combination told the buyer that it was a late 1941 or 1942 model. The registration book showed it to be first registered on 9 September 1941. The seller in fact knew that the model was a 1936 or 1938 model.
1. (on Stamp Act point). THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS. 2. I think it desirable that I should say that in my judgment it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to pay regard to what Parliament says in Section 14 of the Stamp Act, 1891.
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.
Routledge v McKay & Ors (BAILII: [1954] EWCA Civ 8)[1954] 1 All ER 855; [1954] 1 WLR 615 (CA)
