Two different things, two different remedies
A warranty is a contractual statement: if it is untrue, you sue for breach of contract. A representation is a statement of fact made to induce you into the contract: if it is untrue, you sue in misrepresentation, a tort. The same words - say, that the accounts are accurate - can be one, the other, or both, and which it is decides the remedy and the size of the recovery.
The contract measure asks what you were promised minus what you got. The misrepresentation measure restores you as if the statement had never been made, and on a deceit measure can reach much further. That gap is why the classification matters.
Sycamore Bidco: warranties only, despite the claim
In Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch), a buyer acquired a company for over GBP 16 million, then found accounting errors and sued both for breach of warranty and for misrepresentation, arguing each warranty was also a representation. The court held the warranties were warranties only, not representations.
The contract structure controlled. The provisions were labelled warranties, set out in a warranty schedule, and given by warrantors, and the limitation clauses were written for breach of warranty. A sophisticated draftsman knows the legal difference, and the agreement as a whole showed warranties were intended. The classification was worth around GBP 12 million in the difference between the two measures of damages - a warranty claim of a few million against a misrepresentation claim approaching the full purchase price.
Why "represents and warrants" may not be enough
It is tempting to think the phrase "represents and warrants" settles it. As a drafting matter, treat it as not enough on its own. Because a court construes the agreement as a whole - the schedule, the defined terms, the limitations, an entire-agreement clause - a label in a heading does not automatically beat the structure of the deal. (In Sycamore Bidco the warranties were not described as representations at all, so the case is authority for warranties not being automatically representations, rather than for that precise phrase; the safe course is explicit reliance wording either way.)
There are conceptual hurdles too. A statement made inside the contract sits awkwardly as a representation, because a representation classically comes before the contract to induce it; and an entire-agreement clause excluding reliance on pre-contractual statements cuts against finding representations at all.
How to create dual liability, if you want it
If you want both contract and misrepresentation claims, draft it explicitly. State that the seller represents and warrants, that each statement is both a contractual warranty and a pre-contractual representation, and - critically - that the buyer is entering into the agreement in reliance on those representations. Reliance and inducement are what make a representation; without them, you are likely left with warranties.
Then make sure the limitation provisions are written to cover both warranty and misrepresentation claims, or you may find the protections you negotiated for warranties do not apply to a misrepresentation claim at all.
Buyer wants both; seller wants one
The interests diverge. A buyer generally wants dual liability: misrepresentation can deliver a larger recovery and reach pre-contractual statements. A seller generally wants warranties only - capped and time-limited - with pre-contractual representations excluded by an entire-agreement clause. The drafting is where that contest is won or lost.
In review, the highest-value check is whether the assurances are warranties, representations, or both, and whether the limitations match - because, as Sycamore Bidco shows, the answer can be worth eight figures.
Use at the desk
Practical checklist
- Treat warranty and representation as distinct - they carry different remedies and damages.
- Do not rely on "represents and warrants" alone for dual liability; add explicit reliance and inducement wording.
- For dual liability, state each statement is both a warranty and a representation, and that the buyer relied on it to enter the contract.
- Make limitation provisions cover both warranty and misrepresentation claims explicitly.
- Sellers wanting warranties only: keep the warranty structure and exclude pre-contractual representations.
- In review, check the label and that the limitations match the intended liability.
This guide is informational only and is not legal advice. It does not replace advice from licensed counsel on the facts of a specific transaction.
Product demo
Use the guide for context. Use Veqtor for the Word documents.
Watch Claude compare negotiation drafts and create a separate Word document with proposed tracked changes.
See Veqtor work with Word redlines