Smith V Hughes is a landmark case in English contract law that dealt with the issue of contract formation and the interpretation of contractual terms.
Facts of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Mr. Smith, the plaintiff, and Mr. Hughes, the defendant. Mr. Smith, a seller of oats, offered to sell oats to Mr. Hughes, and exhibited a sample, the defendant took the sample, and on the following day wrote to say that he would take the oats at the price of 34s. per quarter. The defendant aferwards refused to accept the oats on the ground that they were new, and he thought he was buying old oats; nothing, however, was said at the time the sample was shewn as to their being old; but the price was very high for new oats.
Legal Issue: Does the principle of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) in the context of a specific article being offered for sale without express warranty or implied warranty apply?
Court’s Decision:
Where a specific article is offered for sale, without express warranty, or without circumstances from which the law will imply a warranty – as where, for instance, an article is ordered for a specific purpose – and the buyer has full opportunity of inspecting and forming his own judgment, if he chooses to act on his own judgment, the rule caveat emptor applies.
Rules quoted as reference:
The general rule, both of law and equity, in respect to concealment, is that mere silence with regard to a material fact, which there is no legal obligation to divulge, will not avoid a contract, although it operate as an injury to the party from whom it is concealed.
Although a vendor is bound to employ no artifice or disguise for the purpose of concealing defects in the article sold, since that would amount to a positive fraud on the vendee; yet, under the general doctrine of caveat emptor, he is not, ordinarily, bound to disclose every defect of which he may be cognizant. But, an improper concealment or suppression of a material fact, which the party concealing is legally bound to disclose, and of which the other party has a legal right to insist that he shall be informed, is fraudulent, and will invalidate a contract.
Mere silence as to anything which the other party might by proper diligence have discovered, and which is open to his examination, is not fraudulent, unless a special trust or confidence exist between the parties, or be implied from the circumstances of the case.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks