Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597

Facts

  • The dispute involved a racehorse trainer, Hughes, who purchased oats from a farmer, Smith.
  • Hughes believed he was buying old oats suitable for horses, but the oats supplied were new.
  • No discussion occurred regarding the age of the oats at the time of contract formation.
  • After delivery, Hughes refused to pay, claiming a mistake had occurred about the oats' age.
  • Smith brought an action for payment, while Hughes argued there was no binding contract due to his mistaken belief.

Issues

  1. Whether contract formation should be assessed based on the parties’ subjective intentions or on the objective appearance of agreement.
  2. Whether Hughes could refuse performance of the contract due to his unilateral mistake regarding the age of the oats.
  3. Whether any misrepresentation or misleading conduct by Smith occurred to justify vitiating the contract.

Decision

  • The court held that no misrepresentation had occurred, as Smith did not contribute to Hughes's mistaken belief.
  • The contract was upheld, with the court finding that the objective interpretation of words and conduct, rather than internal intentions, was determinative.
  • Hughes was bound by the contract, as a reasonable person would conclude an agreement was made on the terms discussed.
  • The argument that genuine consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) was required was rejected in favor of an objective standard.

Legal Principles

  • The objective test governs contract formation: parties are bound when their conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe agreement has been reached, regardless of undisclosed intentions.
  • The doctrine of caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) applies, placing the risk of mistakes on the purchaser if the seller did not mislead.
  • A contract cannot be vitiated solely by a unilateral mistake if the mistaken party’s belief was not induced by the other side.
  • The law prioritizes certainty and practical policy over purely subjective consensus in commercial dealings.
  • Limitations exist to the objective test, such as when one party knowingly “snaps up” an obvious mistake in an offer.

Conclusion

Smith v Hughes is a leading authority establishing that in English contract law, the objective appearance of agreement prevails over subjective intention. The parties’ outward words and actions govern contract validity, ensuring certainty and fairness in commercial transactions. The case reinforced the caveat emptor principle and has shaped the development of offer and acceptance doctrines in English law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal