Ward v Hobbs
Rule established
There is no implied warranty of soundness on a sale of goods, and mere non-disclosure of a known defect does not amount to fraud. A sale expressly with all faults places the risk of quality on the buyer.
Facts
- The seller sent pigs to be sold at a public auction.
- The pigs were suffering from a contagious disease, typhoid fever, which the seller knew of.
- The sale was expressly made "with all faults."
- The seller made no representation about the condition of the pigs and did not disclose the disease.
- The buyer's other pigs became infected and died.
- The buyer sued for damages, alleging fraud and breach of an implied warranty.
Issue
- Whether a seller who knows of a serious defect but says nothing is liable, where the sale was expressly with all faults and no representation was made.
Held
- The House of Lords held the seller not liable. There was no implied warranty of soundness on the sale of goods, and the words "with all faults" put the buyer on notice that he took the goods as they were. Mere non-disclosure of the disease, without any active misrepresentation or concealment, did not amount to fraud. The buyer had the opportunity to inspect and bore the risk of quality.
Ratio Decidendi
The common law imposed no general duty of disclosure on a seller of goods. Absent an express warranty, an active misrepresentation, or a positive act of concealment, the buyer takes the goods subject to their actual condition, and an express "with all faults" clause reinforces that allocation of risk.
How to use it in an exam
- The classical statement of caveat emptor in its full rigour, now the opening words of S.16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930.
- Use it to establish the default rule before working through the statutory exceptions in S.15, S.16 and S.17.
- The key distinction to draw is between passive non-disclosure, which is not fraud, and active concealment, which is and defeats even an "all faults" clause.
- Explains why statutory intervention became necessary, since the outcome is plainly hard on the buyer.
Source
Source: (1878) 4 AC 13; classical statement of caveat emptor in its full rigour; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.