(c) Warranties, not representations and warranties
Warranties, not representations and warranties. The word warranties is very often coupled with representations; and the parties do not merely warrant, they represent and warrant. Using both words, however, a superfluous search for certainty. Nevertheless, every legal culture has its own thoughts. English lawyers representing a seller would delete representations in view of potential arguments based on the Misrepresentation Act 1967, which act entitles a purchaser to rescind a contract in case of (significant) misreprentation or to make a claim ‘in tort' rather than a (qualified and limited) claim under the contract. Conversely, U.S.-lawyers would probably delete (less decisively) warranties because allegedly representations would also cover assertions of fact unrelated to sales.
On the European continent, one would expect that representation is the preferred wording. At least from a semantic point of view, the well-known concept of a ‘juridical act' (being something like ‘a statement or declaration, which has legal effect as such') seems to match better with that terminology (whereas a warranty has no specific legal meaning). Regardless of this somehow arbitrary argument, European contract laws are conceptually built on notions such as the parties' (mental) consent, their free (subjective) mutual will, or the meaning that a reasonable person will (objectively) attribute to what the parties expressed as their agreement. Because of such notions, the English-language-distinction is not so obvious that using the one word or the other is of any decisive relevance. What is relevant is that one party makes a statement of fact and that the other may or may not invoke a contractual or statutory rights when that statement happens to be incorrect.