Baldry v Marshall

Facts

• The plaintiff consulted the defendants, motor dealers, stating that he wanted a comfortable car suitable for touring purposes.
• The defendants recommended a Bugatti car as suitable for that purpose.
• The plaintiff bought the car under a written contract which provided that the sellers gave no guarantee or warranty, statutory or otherwise.
• The car proved wholly unsuitable for touring.
• The plaintiff rejected the car and sued to recover the price paid.

Issue

1. Whether the requirement of fitness for the stated purpose was a condition or a warranty, and whether a clause excluding guarantees and warranties protected the seller.

Held

• The Court of Appeal held for the buyer. The stipulation that the car should be suitable for touring went to the root of the contract and was therefore a condition, not a warranty. A clause excluding warranties, however widely worded, does not exclude conditions: the two are distinct in law and an exclusion clause must be construed strictly against the party putting it forward. The buyer was accordingly entitled to reject the car and recover the price.

Ratio Decidendi

The classification of a term depends on its importance to the main purpose of the contract, not on the words the parties use. An exemption clause referring only to warranties leaves conditions untouched, because the draftsman must be taken to have used the statutory language with its statutory meaning.