Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554
Facts
At an auction, a heifer was described in the catalogue as unserved. General conditions purported to place faults and errors of description at the purchaser's risk. Before bidding, Couchman asked both the seller and auctioneer to confirm that the heifer had not been served, and both said that it had not. He purchased the animal. It was in fact in calf and died because it was too young to carry the calf safely. Couchman sought damages, arguing that the specific oral confirmation formed part of the sale despite the general printed conditions.
Legal Issue
Did the specific oral confirmation that the heifer was unserved form a binding term despite the general conditions concerning faults and description?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the purchaser's appeal. The direct assurance that the heifer was unserved formed part of the bargain. It addressed a matter important to the animal's identity and suitability which the purchaser had specifically raised before bidding.
The general printed conditions did not neutralise that unqualified oral undertaking in the circumstances. The court rejected an interpretation under which the seller could confirm the decisive fact and then treat that assurance as irrelevant as soon as the auctioneer's hammer fell. The purchaser was entitled to pursue damages for breach of the contractual assurance. The decision therefore turns on the objective significance of the specific statement and its relationship with the general conditions, rather than a rule that oral words always outrank writing.
⭐ Legal Principle
A specific assurance given in response to a purchaser's inquiry may become a contractual term and prevail over inconsistent general printed conditions on the proper construction of the bargain. Importance, knowledge and reliance inform whether the assurance is contractual; no universal priority attaches to oral statements.
Significance
Couchman provides a concrete example of distinguishing a term from a mere representation. The buyer directly asked about a significant, non-obvious characteristic, and the seller gave an unqualified answer. It should be compared with Oscar Chess and Dick Bentley, which examine relative knowledge and responsibility. The decision also illustrates why exclusion wording must be read with the transaction as a whole. Modern sales legislation supplies additional questions, but does not remove the need to identify what was expressly promised.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the assurance about the heifer contractual?
The purchaser specifically asked whether the animal was unserved before committing to the sale, and received an unqualified confirmation. The characteristic was important and not readily established by inspection. Those circumstances supported an undertaking about what was being sold, rather than casual praise or a statement carrying no contractual responsibility.
Why did the general printed conditions not defeat the buyer?
The court construed the bargain in light of the specific assurance. It would not treat the direct answer to the buyer's decisive question as automatically disappearing when the auction concluded. The result depended on the relationship between those statements and conditions, not a rule that printed terms are inherently ineffective.
How should a similar auction problem be analysed?
Identify the exact assurance, when it was given, its importance and the parties' knowledge. Then construe it alongside the written conditions and consider incorporation and statutory controls. Couchman supports treating a specific commitment as contractual, but does not justify ignoring all written terms whenever a seller speaks before the sale.