Understanding Puffery and Misrepresentation in Contract Law
To confirm if the office chair named OFFICE PRO X9 is by information the most amazing chair for the contract is provided in the said contract or is it not.
An act of Puffery when compared to a contractual terms cannot be considered the same what so ever. Puffery is something that cannot be considered legal in accordance to the law, but, the contract is fixed and legally binding, tying two or more parties together. It was stated in REA Group Limited v Fairfax Media Limited[1] case, where it was judged that the term puffery refers to the exaggerations prompted by dealers to highlight their product’s most significant features. So, it is considered that reason cannot dominate vaguely fashioned phrases.
The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[2] made it very clear when the defendant of the cause interpreted their actions to be mere puffs, but, the judges had other reasons to think not. It was judged by law that when an act of puffery is convincing enough to overpower a reasonable person into signing a contract, then, it can be considered a contractual term.
In application to certain principles appointed in a carbolic case, we can determine whether a clause is a puff or not, in Australia. The subject matter too plays its crucial rule in the identification procedure. As learned before, if a puff is inducing enough to lead into the formation of a potential contract, it will be considered as a contractual term.
As said in the situation given to us, taking into consideration the laws of ‘Puff’ and ‘Misrepresentation’, it is seen that Samantha mentioned nothing more that the appliance named OFFICE PRO X9 is supposed to be the best for sale in market and stated of its supposed amazing nature. It clear by her words that he opinion of the chair being amazing for of her own, it is not at all necessary that something which is amazing to one has to make the same appeal to the others and hence can be considered a puff. The word “I think”, clearly point to the fact that the thought of the chair being amazing was her personal opinion and not a legitimate fact.
Hence, we can say that Samantha’s statement on the chair is clearly not in the contractual terms, but, nevertheless, they seem to have clearly motivated and Peter into purchasing the appliance. Hence, this factor alone transforms Samantha’s comment into misrepresentation and changes the puff into a contractual term.
Conclusion
Hence, it can be concluded that both the statements of Samantha about OFFICE PRO 9X being the best in the market and being amazing are clearly not a part of the said contract but since it induced Peter into purchasing the product, it turns into misrepresentation and hence, a contractual term.
Can the statement of ‘OFFICE PRO 9X having comfortable back supporting technology that would help Mr. Peter to get his work done in extreme comfort for the whole day, be in the terms of the said contract?
Application of Puffery and Misrepresentation to a Case Scenario
It is seen that as per the contract laws, it is not the subject intention that attracts the parties into binding themselves in a contract, but, the objective purpose that does it, as seen in the Esso Petroleum v Mardon[3] case. It can be easily determined whether a person with proper reasoning will enter a contract based on the representations or not by a simple objective test.
It has been mentioned already, in the Carbolic Smoke ball case that when a puff is convincing enough to overpower a reasonable person into signing a contract, then it can be rightfully taken as a contractual term.
The Harling v Eddy[4] case made it clear that if the buyer does not have knowledge of a certain product feature that was not shown to him before the agreement of a contract, then those features too fall under the contractual terms. However, in the above instance, the buyer seemed to have all the idea about the said subject matter.
The facts involved in the current case is that the appliance OFFICE PRO 9X must provide comfortable back support to the buyer, Mr. Peter, such that he can, in all comforts sit and do his job all day. It was the main reason as to why Peter got this chair in the first place and made sure to clarify all his basic needs that he would want out of the appliance. In addition to that, he stated his reasons of purchasing a chair with the lower back support quite clearly and wished to enjoy the benefits of having the best lower back comfort. Hence, here, it can be stated that those were the terms of the contract.
Conclusion
The points stated that OFFICE PRO 9X would provide the best support for the lower back and would help Peter do his job, sitting on it comfortably, all day can be safely stated as the in the contractual terms.
Which term of the contract does the part that states the ‘OFFICE PRO9X provides comfortable black supporting technology that will let the buyer, Mr. Peter sit and do his work comfortably all day’ fall under?
The case of Poussard v Spiers[5] is also said to be a landmark case. It can be understood by this case that the words of a contract are absolute and a breach is unacceptable as a condition is one of the prime terms of contract which is based on the primary subject matter. A breach would empower the adjoining party to severe the said contract then and there and claim any damages resulting from it.
A breach in warranty though does not empower the adjoining party severe a contract then and there, but, they surely can claim any damages resulting from it, such was seen in the case of Bettini v Gye[6].
It is also seen in cases that the causing factor of a breach is discussed instead of the warranties and conditions involved in the contract, such as in the case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha[7].
Categories of Contractual Terms and Consequences of Breach
According to the Common Law system, that contract law states that the said contract can be put into three distinct categories:
- Conditions
- Intermediaries
In the above case, the terms holding the contract seem very important, as in the enjoyment or sheer frustration experienced by the parties when breaching or maintaining the contractual terms. If in case it is seen that the terms of the contract are violated by a said party, the other party can decline the whole contract as per the frustrations that were caused by the actions of the other party in the fulfillment of the contract.
Hence, it can be said that the term provided that the appliance would give a comfortable support to the lower back, to the buyer and help him work comfortably for longer hours is conditional. Hence, it can be said that Forever Furnitures have done a breach.
Conclusion
Hence, the non existence of the quality desired by Peter while purchasing the chair in all ways defeats the purpose of buying it in the first place since the conditions so mentioned directly affected the enjoyment and satisfaction of the buyer.
To see whether Peter can be prevented from filing a lawsuit against Forever Furnitures based on the clause of exclusion, number 10 as per the breach in the contract of OFFICE PRO 9X providing comfortable back support for working comfortably for the whole day.
It can be stated that if a party is unaware about any facts related to a said product and there is not scene of any related fraudulent misrepresentation whatsoever then those terms too are supposed stay binding for all the parties involved, as seen in the said case of L’Estrange V Graucob[8].
It is also a known fact that an exclusion clause is addable with the signatures of the said members involved in the contract as mentioned in the case of Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co[9].
It was stated by the court of law in the Baldry V Marshall[10] case that any trouble or vagueness seen in any exclusion clauses will be held against the party that formed them.
In the above case, it was seen by Peter that in contradiction to what was told to him, the chair sis not provide any comfort for the lower back nor did it help him work all day in all amenity and cheerfulness.
As stated very clearly in L’Estrange’s case, it can be said that Peter has to agree to the terms of the contract as even if he wasn’t aware of the unstated facts, they were still in the contract and he signed anyway. It is also seen in Curtis’s case that an exclusion clause is addable with the signature of the said party, though in this case, it seems quite valid.
However, there is a significant difference between the breach of a condition and the breach of a mere warranty which is a part of the contract. Hence, even if the seller refuses to take as a condition and turn it into a warranty, it won’t be valid as stated in Baldry’s case. Hence, since the seller had broken a condition, they cannot use the exclusion clause for their defense.
Conclusion
Peter’s rights will not be restricted by the exclusion clause.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
