Crook v Keen

Crook v Keen

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Mr Keen acted as agent for Metropolitan Car Parks and that Mr Crook knew or ought to have known of the agency. Therefore, Mr Keen was not liable for breach of implied warranty of title or misrepresentation.

Parties
Appellant: Simon Crook; Respondent: James Keen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Implied Warranty of Title, Agency Relationship, Misrepresentation, Title to Goods
Contract Law Agency Law Implied Warranty of Title Agency Relationship Misrepresentation Title to Goods

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Crook

Appellant

James Keen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Keen sold the car as principal or as agent for Metropolitan Car Parks
  2. 2 Whether Mr Crook knew of the agency relationship
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of implied warranty of title

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Mr Keen acted as agent for Metropolitan Car Parks and that Mr Crook knew or ought to have known of the agency. Therefore, Mr Keen was not liable for breach of implied warranty of title or misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs, subject to detailed assessment