Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd
The implied condition of correspondence with description applies only to words that identify the goods, and a contaminated ingredient was still goods of that description.
Facts
Ashington Piggeries asked Christopher Hill, compounders of animal food, to make up a food for mink, according to a formula supplied by Ashington. One of the ingredients was herring meal, which Christopher Hill bought from Norwegian suppliers. The herring meal had been contaminated with a chemical that was toxic to mink, and thousands of mink died. Ashington sued Christopher Hill, which claimed against the Norwegian suppliers.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the food corresponded with its description, because the herring meal was still herring meal, even though it was contaminated. Lord Wilberforce said that the test of description is whether the words identify the kind of goods, and that a defect in the quality of the goods does not mean that they do not correspond with their description. However, the House held that Christopher Hill was liable for breach of the implied term that the goods were reasonably fit for their purpose, because Ashington had relied on its skill and judgment in obtaining the ingredients, and the Norwegian suppliers were similarly liable to Christopher Hill.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
- Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1
- Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
- Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
- Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
- Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
- Jewson Ltd v Boyhan [2003] EWCA Civ 1030
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
