| CHAPTER 2A – Term 1 | ||
| Topic | Case | Brief Desription |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms :
1) Time Gap 2) Reduced to Writing Later Not Term |
Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR 615 | 單車賣方口頭保證單車生產年期，但七日後成交之書面合約無列明該口頭保證 |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – Reduced to Writing Later – Not Term | Heilbut Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30 | 其實不是橡膠公司
在 rubber boom period, 口頭對話誤會對方做橡膠業務故買下大量該公司股份，後股價狂趺才知對方共非做橡膠，官判敗訴因合約無列明是橡膠業務 |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – Importance of subject matter to the parties – Term | Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS 844 | 買酒花賣家話冇用 sulphur 買後知有，官判該口頭陳述有 binding |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – Warranty normally given – Not term | Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80 Lloyd’s Rep 286. | 船方叫買方找第三者 check 船才買已暗示他不負責船是否完好 |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – Warranty normally given – Term | Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 Ir. Rep 81 | 賣馬方強調馬高質不用驗，官判此保證是 Term |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – special knowledge/ skills – Not Term | Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325 | Innocent Seller賣車予車房按所知表示該車出產年份為某年，事後車房知出產年份較甲所述為早，官判車房敗訴，因其更有專業常識判斷車齡 |
| Distinction between Representations and Terms – special knowledge/ skills – Term | Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 W.L.R. 623 | Car dealer 陳述車行過之哩數與事實不符，官判 car dealer has much better knowledge than buyer, hence his statement is a Term, this is also a case of Misinterpretation 失實陳述 |
| Parol Evidence Rule – Exception – Collateral Warranty 附带担保– Term | Couchman v Hill [1947] 1 K.B. 554 | 拍賣條件指明不負責拍賣品之狀況，但拍賣官話小母牛不會懷孕之陳述與事實不符，官判其陳述是 Term |
| Parol Evidence Rule – Exception – Collateral Warranty 附带担保– Term | Esso Petroleum Co v Mardon [1976] 2 All ER 5 | Esso 話油站有相當車流量，租站方達不到生意量欠租，Esso 告，官判 Esso 敗因其對車流量陳述屬 collateral warranty |
| Parol Evidence Rule – Exception – Customs/ trade usage | Smith v Wilson (1832) 3B & Ad 728 | 白兔數量 — 需從習俗方言來解讀合約文字 |
| Parol Evidence Rule – Exception – Contract not to operate until a specified event occurs | Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E & B 370 | 甲買乙之新發明，大前提（口頭約定）要該發明已先獲工程師批准 |