FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 17,790 times | Saved to 472 briefcases
Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill, [1972] Ac 441


D (ashington) asked P (chris) to package mink food in accordance with formula D made. Ingredients were to be supplied by P and be of the best quality. Minks got sick from the food. P brought action claiming price of goods. Claim brought against another corp bc the ingredient delivered was contained a dangerous toxin


Was there a breach of description?


For sale by description, it is only a question of whether the goods as described were delivered. Description does not necessarily relate to quality

Buyer need only partially rely on the sellers skill or judgement. The fitness-for-purpose rule is subject to the idiosyncratic exception.
**The Idiosyncratic Exception: If the seller could show that the mink possessed an idiosyncrasy which made the food unsuitable but it would suitable for other animals or birds, then there would be no liability.


Description part of s.14 is different then the merchantable quality part.

Purpose of including the words ‘in course of sellers business to supply’ is not to say that seller has to have continuously supplied these goods before 15(1) in engaged - but simply to distinguish a private sale from a commercial sale (15(1) does not apply to a private sale only to commercial sale)


No failure to correspond with the description.

Food was not reasonably fit for purpose under 15(1).


The question is whether what the buyer bargained for had been provided; were the goods as described delivered? The test is based on reasonableness as understood within the market?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.