Case name & citation: Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554; [1947] 1 All ER 103
- Court of Appeal, England and Wales
- The bench of judges: Scott, Tucker and Bucknill L.JJ.
- Area of law: Exclusion clauses; terms in a contract; conditions and warranties
In Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an oral statement made prior to a contract can be incorporated as a term of the contract despite written terms suggesting otherwise.
Facts (Couchman v Hill)
The defendant auctioned a heifer, described as “unserved” (i.e., not yet used for breeding) in the catalogue. The sale conditions included a clause that lots were sold “with all faults, imperfections and errors of description,” and that auctioneers were not liable for mistakes.
Before finalizing the purchase, the buyer asked both the auctioneer and seller to confirm that the heifer was unserved, and they both assured him that it was.
However, the heifer was later found to be pregnant and died from complications related to giving birth at too young an age.
Judgment taken
The Court of Appeal held that the oral assurances provided by the auctioneer and seller were deemed to be a term of the contract. The Court recognized that the representation about the heifer being unserved was crucial to the buyer’s decision to purchase.
Reasoning
Importance of Statement: The Court considered the significance of the oral statement to the buyer. The greater the reliance placed on a statement by one party, the more likely it is that such a statement will be treated as a term of the contract.
In other words, if a statement is crucial to one party’s decision to enter into the contract, it is more likely to be considered a term of the contract. In Couchman v Hill, the Court found that the oral assurance about the heifer being unserved was integral to the buyer’s decision to enter the contract. As a result, it was incorporated into the contract as a term. This was despite the written contract terms stating that the sale was “with all faults.”
Misrepresentation vs. Term: If a statement is so crucial that the party would not have entered the contract without it, the statement may be treated as a term rather than merely a misrepresentation.
Key Takeaway (Couchman v Hill)
A statement made during the pre-contractual negotiations can be deemed a term of the contract if it was so significant that the party would not have entered into the contract if he had known it to be untrue. This case illustrates that oral assurances can be considered terms of the contract if they are crucial to the party’s decision to contract.
List of references:
- http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/13577/1/15.pdf
- https://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/002CHAPTERTWOTRADE2.pdf
- https://legislativediv.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/legislativediv.portal.gov.bd/page/4e003fd0_cd24_4826_a89c_f1e74fe3ad0f/Contract%20Law_%20Uk%20Edition%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf
- https://www.casrilanka.com/casl/images/stories/EDBA/4%20contract%20law%208-12-2019%20notes.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: