Gemma owns a car that she decides to sell. She advertises it for sale in a newspaper for $10,000 and gives a brief description of the vehicle in the advertisement. Gemma had purchased the car one year earlier from its original owner. When she bought the car, she was told that it had traveled 30,000 kilometers and that it had never been involved in a collision. ( [element of the contracts]

Gemma does not doubt the first of these two statements, but she has since discovered that the car had been extensively damaged in a collision whilst owned by its original owner, but the damage has been well repaired.

Scott comes to inspect the car. Gemma tells him that the car has traveled 50,000 kilometres (Kathy having driven it 20,000 kilometers during the year she owned it) and that, so far as she knows, it has never been involved in a collision.

Scott buys the car for $25,000. The written contract makes no mention of the kilometres the car has been driven, nor whether the car has been involved in a collision

A month later, Scott calls Gemma on the phone and complains that he has been informed that the car has been. involved in a serious collision, and that it has travelled 130,000 kilometres, not 50,000.

a) Advise Scott whether he is able to sue for breach of contract in regards to the kilometers the car has traveled and the collision?

The issue is whether the statement made by Gemma about the mileage of the car and that the car has not been in an accident is a term of the contract. Thus, Gemma establishes to sue the Scott.A term of the contract can be express and implied and can be written and verbal. However, if a contract is reduced in writing the PER prohibits extrinsic verbal evidence that contradicts the written terms Discuss exceptions

b) If the statements about the kilometers traveled and the collision are not terms of a contract, does Scott have any alternative? What if Scott decides he would like to keep the car anyway but would like damages?