Chandelor v Lopus
Chandelor v Lopus | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Exchequer |
Citation | (1603) 79 Eng Rep 3; Cro Jac 4 |
Keywords | |
Caveat emptor |
Chandelor v Lopus (1603) 79 ER 3[1] is a famous case in the common law of England.[2] It stands for the distinction between warranties and mere affirmations and announced the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Facts
A man paid £100 for what he thought was a
How the
The issue for the court was whether the sales pitch had been the usual big talk of the market merchants in the plying of their wares, or if there had been indeed an actual deceit in the transaction.[4]
Judgment
The
Significance
Chandelor long stood as an impediment to any common law development of consumer protection systems.
Only in the nineteenth century did the law begin to evolve a doctrine of implied warranty.
This judgment predated a common law[5] recognition of fraudulent misrepresentation by 180 years.
See also
- Lord Holt CJheld that "An affirmation at the time of a sale is a warranty, provided it appears on evidence to be so intended."
- Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] AC 30
- Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)
References
- ^ Stonegate Legal (20 August 2023). "Chandelor v Lopus (1603) 79 ER 3" (PDF).
- ^ Barry Rider, Research Handbook on International Financial Crime (Edward Elgar Publishing) p 25
- ^ William Hughes, A practical Treatise of the laws Relitive to the sale and Conveyance of Real Property.(Saunders and Benning, 1840) p168.
- ^ William Hughes, A Practical Treatise of the Laws Relative to the Sale and conveyance of real property (Saunders and Benning, 1840) p170.
- ^ Pasley v Freeman (1789) 3 TR 51.
- Smith, John William (1888). A Selection of Leading Cases on Various Branches of the Law. Vol. 1 (9 ed.). Charles H Edson and Co. pp. 319–353.