The Student Room Group

Question on Smith v Hughes (Contract)

Hello, I have a quick question on Smith v Hughes (the case concerning quality of oats). There the court held that the defendant's mistaken belief that the oats were of a certain quality did not preclude him from escaping liability under the contract, even if the plaintiff was aware or believed that the defendant was mistaken about the quality of the oats in question. The defendant must take the consequence of his own mistake.

However Hannen J then goes on to say that 'The promisor is not bound to fulfill a promise in a sense which the promisee knew at the time the promisor did not intend it.' Does this not contradict the above? Suppose the seller intended to sell new oats, and the buyer to buy old oats. No mention of the quality of the oats was made. The buyer accepts the seller's offer to sell oats, under the mistaken belief that the oats are old. The seller is aware of or believes that the buyer thinks he is buying old oats. Would the buyer be bound by his promise to pay for the goods, even though the seller knew that the buyer's intention was not to buy new oats?

Quick Reply

Latest