Published: Wed, 07 Mar 2018
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Ltd  AC 235
Condition versus warranty in a contract
Schuler were a company engaged in the manufacture of types of tools. They had contracted with Wickman, who had sole rights to sell Schuler products in the UK. The contract included a term which stated that Wickman must send a sales person to every single company of car makers on a specific list on a weekly basis. If this was to be fully achieved, this would require that Wickman make 1400 visits over the 4 and a half years contract. They did not manage to adhere to that part of the contract (which was argued by Schuler to be a condition of the contract since Clause 7b of the contract expressly stated that this was a condition). Initially Wickman did not make any visits, and Schuler waived the condition for a short duration, but later as the visits started, they became dissatisfied that not all visits were being made. On those grounds, Schuler terminated the contract arguing a breach of condition. Wickman argued that Schuler had terminated the contract wrongfully.
The issue in the case was whether the fact that a term of the contract was called a “condition” was conclusive, and whether it could be anything else upon a full reading and interpretation of the contract.
The courts held that Clause 7b was a warranty and not a condition and that simply calling a term a condition did not necessarily make it so. Therefore Schuler was not entitled to terminate the contract without giving notice and allowing Wickman to remedy the situation.
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: