HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Smith v Hughes'' (1871) LR 6 QB 597 is an
English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...
case. In it,
Blackburn J Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn, (18 May 1813 – 8 January 1896) was a Scottish judge who is remembered as one of the greatest exponents of the common law. At one point, Blackburn was a judge in the Court of Exchequer Chamber. On 16 October ...
set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct (acceptance by conduct) when entering into a contract. The case regarded a mistake made by Mr. Hughes, a horse trainer, who bought a quantity of oats that were the same as a sample he had been shown. However, Hughes had misidentified the kind of oats: his horse could not eat them, and refused to pay for them. Smith, the oat supplier, sued for Hughes to complete the sale as agreed. The court sided with Smith, as he provided the oats Hughes agreed to buy. That Hughes made a mistake was his own fault, as he had not been misled by Smith. Since Smith had made no fault, there was no mutual mistake, and the sale contract was still valid. The case stands for the narrow proposition that in a commercial sale by sample (following sample) where the goods conform to the sample shown, the court will mindful of the principle of ''
caveat emptor ''Caveat emptor'' (; from ''caveat'', "may he/she beware", a subjunctive form of ''cavēre'', "to beware" + ''ēmptor'', "buyer") is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, ''caveat emptor'' is the contra ...
'' ("buyer beware") look more to objective than subjective ''
consensus ad idem Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or ''consensus ad idem'') is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where t ...
'' ("meeting of the minds"). Its wider proposition, not directly relevant to the facts of the case, and later substantially reduced, was that a consumer buying an item, such as "a horse", without a representation or warranty (any seller's statement or special term as to its condition) making his own assessment which "turns out unsound" cannot avoid, that is seek to obtain a refund on, the contract — see for example the largely consolidatory Consumer Rights Act 2015.


Facts

Mr. Hughes was a
racehorse Horse racing is an equestrian performance sport, typically involving two or more horses ridden by jockeys (or sometimes driven without riders) over a set distance for competition. It is one of the most ancient of all sports, as its basic pr ...
trainer. Mr. Smith, who was a farmer, brought him a sample of his oats, of which Hughes then ordered forty to fifty quarters at a fixed price. Sixteen quarters were sent to start with. But when they arrived, Hughes said they were not the oats he thought they would be. He had wanted old oats (which are the only ones racehorses can eat), and he was getting new oats (also known as green oats). In fact, Smith's sample was of green oats. Hughes refused to pay and Smith sued for damages for breach of contract, for the amount of oats delivered and still to be delivered. Later questions were put in this civil matter to jury (a procedure today largely abolished). The jury convened locally at a County Court of
Surrey Surrey () is a ceremonial county, ceremonial and non-metropolitan county, non-metropolitan counties of England, county in South East England, bordering Greater London to the south west. Surrey has a large rural area, and several significant ur ...
, at
Epsom Epsom is the principal town of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell in Surrey, England, about south of central London. The town is first recorded as ''Ebesham'' in the 10th century and its name probably derives from that of a Saxon landowner. The ...
. They initially found for Mr. Hughes that there was a mistake on his part. They were directed by the judge that if Mr. Hughes was under a mistake about the oats (thinking they were old when they were green oats) and Mr. Smith had known it, they should find in Mr. Hughes' favour. They therefore did so. Mr. Smith appealed.


Judgment

The Court of the Queen's Bench found that the jury had been misdirected and ordered a retrial. Leaning in Mr. Smith's favour, they held that the question was not merely whether the parties were at ''consensus ad idem'' (meeting of the minds), but what they had communicated by their conduct and words to one another. Mr. Smith was held to be under no duty to inform Mr. Hughes of his possible mistake about the kind of oats, reaffirming the old idea of ''
caveat emptor ''Caveat emptor'' (; from ''caveat'', "may he/she beware", a subjunctive form of ''cavēre'', "to beware" + ''ēmptor'', "buyer") is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, ''caveat emptor'' is the contra ...
'' (buyer beware). A unilateral mistake is therefore in principle no ground for rescission of a contract. Cockburn CJ gave the first judgment. Then,
Blackburn J Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn, (18 May 1813 – 8 January 1896) was a Scottish judge who is remembered as one of the greatest exponents of the common law. At one point, Blackburn was a judge in the Court of Exchequer Chamber. On 16 October ...
, who came to be known as one of the great 19th century judges, agreeing, gave his decision on the issue.at 606-8 Hannen J delivered a concurring judgment.


See also

* *'' Hotchkiss v National City Bank of New York'', 200 F 287, 293 (SD NY 1911), per Judge Learned Hand, "A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party, when he used the words, intended something else than the usual meaning that the law imposes upon them, he would still be held, unless there were some mutual mistake or something else of the sort." *'' Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd'' UKHL_2
*''Hartog_v_Colin_&_Shields.html" ;"title="932
UKHL 2
*''Hartog v Colin & Shields">932
UKHL 2
*''Hartog v Colin & Shields'' [1939] 3 All ER 566 *''Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd'' [1953] 2 QB 450


Notes and references

;References ;Notes {{Oats 1871 in case law Lord Blackburn cases English agreement case law English interpretation case law 1871 in British law Oats Court of King's Bench (England) cases