Legal Analysis: Contractual Rights in Truck Sales Dispute

This case study analyzes a scenario where Patrick purchased a used truck from Harry’s Truck Sales based on misrepresentations made by the salesperson, Greg, regarding the truck's manufacturing year and mileage. The analysis focuses on whether Greg's statements constituted terms of the contract, referencing the cases of Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd and Oscar Chess v Williams to support the arguments. It concludes that Greg's statements were indeed contractual terms and that Harry’s Truck Sales breached the contract due to the false information provided. Consequently, Patrick, as the non-defaulting party, is entitled to remedies such as contract termination, refund or compensation for the damages suffered.

Background Briefing for Advice to Patrick of his contractual rights (Scenario 6)
Patrick wants to buy a second-hand truck for use in the business, and visits a number of vehicle
dealers before deciding to purchase an as-new 2013 Isuzu FVR Truck from Harry’s Truck Sales. The
salesperson, Greg, tells Patrick that the truck was manufactured in 2013 and has only done 19,000
kms.
Patrick buys the truck for $58,000. The truck works well, and is a good asset for the business as it is
used to transport materials and deliver products around Tasmania. Three months later, Patrick
arranges to have the truck serviced with a local mechanic Martin, who is an Isuzu truck enthusiast.
Martin comments on the fact that the truck was in pretty good condition for a 2008 Isuzu truck,
though he was surprised that it had only done 19,000 kms. He would not have been surprised if it
had done 50,000 kms.
Patrick makes further inquiries, and discovers that the Isuzu was in fact made in 2008 and he has
paid about $15,000 more than the actual market value of the truck. Patrick intends to approach
Harry’s Truck Sales about this issue.
Advise Patrick of his contractual rights.
Parties
Patrick - a customer purchased the truck from Greg.
Greg - a salesman in Harry’s Truck Sales who sold the truck to Patrick.
Harry’s Truck Sales - Truck Seller.
Issues
Will Greg’s verbal representation that the truck’s mileage is only 19,000 kilometres be a
term in the contract?
Can Patrick ask Harris Truck Sales to refund fees that exceed the market value of the truck?
Rules
1. The terms of the contract refer to the points of agreement, including express terms
and implied terms.
2. Express terms are those which are clearly and obviously stated in a written or spoken
form within an agreement.
3. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623

a. This case establish that the representation made by the defendant as an
experienced professional to the plaintiff as a non-professional may be
interpreted as a contractual term in the contract.
4. Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370
a. This case determines the steps to identify the warranty in the contract. In this
case, the statement made by the defendant based on the log book of the
vehicle is not considered as a term in the contract, but as a representation.
Application
As a salesman of a truck dealer, Greg should have some knowledge about trucks. At the
time of sale, Greg provided some information about the second-hand truck to Patrick,
including its factory date and mileage. However, after Patrick bought the truck, he found
that the information about the factory date and mileage of the truck made by Grey was
false.
The truck he bought actually manufacture date is 2008 instead of 2013, and the truck has
already done 50,000 kms instead of 19000 kms.
Based on the facts of this case, there should be a written contract between Grey and
Patrick. However, there is only an oral contract between them. Then, it is important
whether the statement made by Grey can be regarded as the terms of the contract.
Grey, as a salesperson, can get more information about trucks than Patrick, so this situation
is very close to the facts of the case Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd
[1965] 1 WLR 623. According to this case, the seller should know the condition of the
vehicle, so the statement made by Grey on the factory date and mileage of the truck should
be recognized as a term in the oral contract. Since the statement made by Grey should be
recognized as the terms of the contract, and these terms are subsequently proved to be
false, Grey is in breach of the terms of the contract.
In addition, in case Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370, since the defendant was not a
professional, the statement made by the defendant was based on the vehicle log book, and
was in good faith, so the statement made by the defendant was considered to be a
representation. In this case, salesman Grey, as a professional, has the responsibility to know

the true condition of the truck, so this case does not apply to the case of Oscar Chess v
Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370.
Conclusion
Since the statement in the case can be regarded as a term and the promise made by Gery at
the time of selling is false, it can be concluded that Harry’s Truck Sales has violated the
terms of the contract. As a non-defaulting party, Patrick has the right to termina the
contract and can get a refund or compensation from Harry’s Truck Sales
Bibliography
1. Legislation
1) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA)
2. Cases
1) Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623
2) Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370