Breach of Contract Jane has decided to purchase a dinner set. A neighbor tells her that her sister-in-law, Carolyn, plans to sell her valuable Coalportservice. Jane phones Carolyn who tells her that the Coalport is a complete service, in immaculate condition and completely original. Jane asks if the Coalport is in "athlone blue", knowing that it is particularly valuable. Carolyn replies, “It has to be, it's the right color Coalport blue.” Jane also asks if it is still possible to purchase replacement Coalport in case of breakages. Carolyn tells her, "Well, I broke a plate a year or two ago and I had no problem buying another one." Jane agrees to send Carolyn a check for the sum of £350, after which Carolyn will send the Coalport. Jane receives service a month later. She is disappointed and angry to discover that: the Coalport is lacking in two items, namely a tureen and saucer; there are minor cracks on the underside of the gravy boat; the Coalport is blue, but not "athlone blue"; and this particular dinner service is no longer available, Coalport has recently been taken over by Wedgwood. Notify Jane. Jane seeks advice on misrepresentations and also a possible action for damages in breach of contract. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact, made contractually and intended to induce the contract and which has that effect. Therefore, to determine whether any of Carolyn's statements will constitute misrepresentation, it is necessary to examine whether they constitute statements of fact. First, regarding the statement regarding… half of the document… statement and conclusion of the contract is important (Routledge v McKay (1954)). There is no gap here to suggest that it could be a term. Secondly, party expenditures are important. Obviously, the seller is expected to know his goods (Harling v Eddy (1951)), but if the buyer has expert knowledge, he can be expected to check the facts (Oscar Chess v Williams (1957)). Furthermore, it would depend on whether the factor was central to the contract (Bannerman v White (1861); Schawel v Reade (1913)). However, Carolyn will argue that the statements were never put in writing. If the representations are decided to be valid in their terms, Jane may seek damages for breach of contract. However, considering the facts and the favorable remedies available for misrepresentations, it is argued that Jane should take action in that area.