12 Questions
What did the auction sale catalogue describe the heifer as?
Unserved
What did the auctioneer's standard conditions state regarding lots being sold?
With all faults, imperfections, and errors of description
Why did the claimant sue both the defendant and the auctioneer?
For breach of warranty
Why did the Court of Appeal rule in favor of the claimant?
Because the claimant made an offer for a warranty
What did the claimant do to obtain confirmation about the heifer's status?
Asked for confirmation from two different people
What was the dangerous aspect of the heifer being with calf?
It was dangerous given the heifer's young age
What did the claimant implicitly communicate by asking for confirmation of the heifer's status?
Their expectation of a warranty that the heifer was unserved.
How did the defendant and auctioneer accept the claimant's offer regarding the heifer's status?
By verbally confirming that the heifer was unserved and accepting the bid.
Why did the auctioneer and defendant rely on the terms of the catalogue and standard conditions?
To avoid liability for errors in the description of lots sold.
What was the significant aspect of the heifer being with calf that made it dangerous?
It posed a risk to the heifer's health due to its young age.
How did the claimant indicate that they would only bid if they obtained a warranty about the heifer's status?
By seeking assurance from both the defendant and auctioneer about the heifer's status.
What was a key factor that led to the Court of Appeal ruling in favor of the claimant?
The defendant and auctioneer's verbal confirmation regarding the heifer's status.
Study Notes
Couchman v Hill Case
- Defendant put up a heifer for auction with a catalogue description as 'unserved'
- The catalogue stated that the sale would be subject to the auctioneer's standard conditions, which included 'all lots must be taken regardless of any faults or errors of description'
- Standard conditions also stated that lots were sold 'with all faults, imperfections and errors of description'
- Claimant asked both the defendant and auctioneer to confirm that the heifer was unserved, and both answered 'yes'
- Claimant bought the heifer, which later turned out to be with calf, resulting in its death due to its young age
Breach of Warranty
- Claimant sued both the defendant and auctioneer for breach of warranty
- Defendant and auctioneer relied on the terms of the catalogue and standard conditions to exclude their liability for errors of description
Court of Appeal Decision
- Court held in favour of the claimant
- Claimant made an offer for a contract warranting that the heifer was unserved by asking for confirmation of its status
- Defendant and auctioneer accepted this offer by confirming orally that the heifer was unserved and then accepting the claimant's bid at the auction
Test your knowledge on the legal case Couchman v Hill which involved an auction sale of a heifer with a disputed description. Explore the key facts and legal principles from this case.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
