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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal