It shows that a bona fide consumer is entitled to rely on the word of a dealer (who is naturally presumed to be an expert).

Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd, car dealers, found one that they said had done only 20,000 miles since a replacement engine.

Dick Bentley sued Harold Smith for breach of warranty, and was successful before the trial judge.

The first point is whether this representation, namely that it had done 20,000 miles only since it had been fitted with a replacement engine and gearbox, was an innocent misrepresentation (which does not give rise to damages), or whether it was a warranty.

I endeavoured to explain in Oscar Chess Ltd. -v- Williams in 1957, 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 375, that the question whether a warranty was intended depends on the conduct of the parties, on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts.

If an intelligent bystander would reasonably infer that a warranty was intended, that will suffice.

Looking at the cases once more, as we have done so often, it seems to me that if a representation is made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it, and actually inducing him to act upon it, by entering into the contract, that is prima facie ground for inferring that it was intended as a warranty.