Roder UK Ltd v West & Anor

Roder UK Ltd v West & Anor

Section 6 of the Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828 applies only where the intent or purpose of the representation is that the debtor should obtain money or goods upon credit. In this case, the directors' representations were not made with such intent, as Titan had already obtained goods and no further money or goods were to be supplied. Therefore, the oral representations do not fall within the scope of the Act, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Roder UK Limited; Appellant/defendant: Anthony Julian West; Appellant/defendant: David Martin Phillips
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Guarantees, Retention of Title
Contract Law Tort Law Statute of Frauds Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Guarantees Retention of Title

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roder UK Limited

Respondent/claimant

Anthony Julian West

Appellant/defendant

David Martin Phillips

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral representations by directors fall within section 6 of the Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828
  2. 2 Whether the intent or purpose of the representations was to obtain money or goods upon credit
  3. 3 Whether directors are liable in the tort of deceit for fraudulent representations

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6 of the Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828 applies only where the intent or purpose of the representation is that the debtor should obtain money or goods upon credit. In this case, the directors' representations were not made with such intent, as Titan had already obtained goods and no further money or goods were to be supplied. Therefore, the oral representations do not fall within the scope of the Act, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed