## Facts

- Dick Bentley Productions Ltd, seeking a reliable Bentley, approached Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd, a specialist car dealer.
- The dealer assured Dick Bentley Productions Ltd that a particular Bentley they offered had only covered 20,000 miles following replacement of the engine and gearbox.
- Relying on this assurance, Dick Bentley Productions Ltd purchased the car.
- It was subsequently discovered that the car had actually been driven far more than claimed, resulting in significant repair costs for the buyer.

## Issues

1. Whether the dealer’s statement regarding the car’s mileage constituted a binding contractual term or merely a representation.
2. How the disparity in knowledge between the professional seller and the buyer affected the legal status of the statement.
3. Whether reliance on the seller's specialist knowledge made the statement enforceable as part of the contract.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found in favour of Dick Bentley Productions Ltd.
- The mileage statement was held to be a contractual term rather than a mere representation.
- The decision emphasized that the dealer, as a professional with specialist knowledge and access to relevant car records, was in a stronger position to know the truth about the car’s history.
- The court considered that a statement by someone with special knowledge, made to induce the contract and relied upon by the other party, was likely to be a term of the contract.

## Legal Principles

- When a person with relevant expert knowledge makes a statement to a party lacking such knowledge, particularly with the intention of inducing a contract, that statement is likely to be treated as a contractual term.
- The distinction between representations and contract terms depends significantly on the parties’ respective knowledge and intentions at the time of contracting.
- Comparison with _Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams_ [1957] 1 WLR 370 demonstrates the importance of specialist knowledge: where both parties lack such knowledge, statements are less likely to be construed as terms.

## Conclusion

_Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd_ established that where one contracting party relies on the skill and expert knowledge of another, especially regarding matters within the latter’s special knowledge, statements made for that purpose are likely to be held as contractual terms. This principle directs courts to consider the parties’ knowledge and intentions when assessing the legal status of pre-contractual statements, thereby protecting those less-informed from inaccurate claims.


Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623 (CA)