body: Why's "warranty" coupled with "representation", not 'condition'?
  
  
  Context
  -------
  
  
  In [Canadian](https://renx.ca/representations-v-warranties-are-they-different-do-you-know-the-difference/) and [English](https://mundays.co.uk/insights/to-warrant-is-not-to-represent/) law, representations differ from warranties1. Thus they aren't doublets, as
  [Ashurst's](https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/quickguides-warranties-and-indemnities/) distinguishes them beneath (as do [Cripps LLP](https://www.cripps.co.uk/contractual-representations-warranties-difference-matters/), [Osborne Clarke](https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/representations-and-warranties-in-private-ma/), [Blake Morgan](https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/training-knowledge/features-and-articles/warranties-representations/), [Walker Morris](https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/disputes-matter-autumnwinter-2016/warranties-andor-representations-matters/)).
  
  
  
  > 
  > A warranty is a term of the contract, a breach of which gives the innocent party the right to claim damages but not to treat the contract as repudiated. A warranty can therefore be contrasted with a condition, which entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as repudiated, and an "intermediate" (or "innominate") term, which may entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as repudiated depending on the nature and consequences of the breach.2
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  p. 613 in [*Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2018 8 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Text-Cases-Materials/dp/019880816X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) instances one use of 'representation or warranty'.
  
  
  
  > 
  > The principles applied by the courts when deciding whether or not a clause is reasonable
  > have been discussed earlier (pp. 427–434, Chapter 13, Section 3). It is probably wise not to
  > attempt to exclude liability for ‘any **representation or warranty**’ because such a clause may,
  > as a matter of interpretation, extend to a fraudulent misrepresentation and an attempt to
  > exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation must be unreasonable (see *Tomas Witter
  > Ltd v. TBP Industries Ltd* [1996] 2 All ER 573; for a contrary view see *Zanzibar v. British
  > Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd* [2000] 1 WLR 2333, where it was held that the words ‘any
  > representation’ were not apt, as a matter of construction, to encompass a fraudulent misrepresentation given that liability for fraud generally cannot be excluded, see p. 612, earlier in
  > this section). It is, however, safer to state that the exclusion or limitation applies to any representation other than one made fraudulently
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
  
  ---
  
  
  ^Perhaps they are in US law too? Tina L. Stark. [*Drafting Contracts: How and Why Lawyers Do What They Do* (2013 2 ed)](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B00HSLR5V6). [18.3](https://books.google.com/books?id=YajfDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT308&ots=OubWLZVMBX&dq=couplet%20%22represent%20and%20warrant%22&pg=PT308#v=onepage&q=couplet%20%22represent%20and%20warrant%22&f=false).
  
  
  
  > 
  > Therefore, they should be pared down to
  > one word—unless the drafter intends a substantive difference, as in the
  > phrase *represent and warrant*.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: Why 'representation or warranty', not 'representation or condition'?