Buttrose J:

This action arises out of the sale of a second-hand motor car by the defendants to the plaintiff under a hire-purchase agreement. The plaintiff claims damages for breach of the agreement by the defendants alternatively damages for fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants in inducing the plaintiff to enter into it.

The position was that the defendants admitted that they represented that the motor car was a 1958 model and that it was not a 1958 model - it was in fact a 1953 model - but they denied that they knew it was not a 1958 model and that the said representation was made fraudulently or recklessly. They maintained that the representation was based upon an entry in the registration book to that effect and made with a i bona fide belief in the truth thereof.

The first question which arises to be considered is whether the representation made by the defendants was a term of contract. The question is often expressed as being whether the words are to be interpreted as giving rise to a warranty.

The facts were that the plaintiff in October 1960, about a month after his arrival in Singapore purchased a second-hand 1956 Fiat from the defendants. He experience