• In the case of Ecay v Godfrey 1947 80 llr 286 it was found that the defendant’s suggestion to the claimant to have a boat surveyed meant that the defendant’s statements regarding the quality of the boat could not to be relied upon and therefore constitute a term of the contract.
  • The seller of a boat made statements as to its condition, but also advised the buyer to have it surveyed. In this situation the seller could not be taken to have intended statements to have formed part of the contract.
  • This case evidenced the necessity of considering all relevant remarks in assessing whether representation may be deemed a contractual term.

Facts of the Case

  • Godfrey (D) contracted to sell a boat to Ecay (C).
  • D having expertise in boats, sold the boat on the basis that it was in good condition however an external surveyance is recommended to complete the picture of quality of the boat.
  • C, disregarding the surveyance, purchased the boat.
  • Upon receiving the boat, C found it to be less than satisfactory.
  • C brought an action against D for the sale of a flawed vessel.

Issues in Ecay v Godfrey 1947 80 llr 286

  • The issues in this case revolve around whether the defendant’s statements concerning the quality of the boat could be relied upon where he has recommended a survey be completed by the claimant/buyer.

Held by High Court (Kings Bench)

  • Held in favour of the defendant that the statement made by D was a mere puff and not a representation and therefore a term of the contract.

Lord Goddard

  • In this situation it is clear that the seller could not be taken to have intended statements to have formed part of the contract. It would be clear to any reasonable buyer that upon hearing of a suggested surveyance by the seller that his sole judgement was not to be relied upon.
  • The statement was not definitive enough to be incorporated as a term.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.