THE RECENT CASE GOODWIN v GRIFFIN

To the editor of the Banbury Guardian

Sir – Now that it has been decided that the appeal in the case of Goodwin v Griffin shall not be proceeded with, I desire, on behalf of the committee of this Union, to offer some public comments upon the case as it affects the interests of farmers.

The facts may be briefly recalled to public memory:- Mr Goodwin, the plaintiff, purchased at the Byfield sale and show in October 1913, conducted by Messrs Miller and Abbotts, the well-known auctioneers of Banbury, a filly foal which had been entered by the defendant, Mr E Griffin, of Kineton. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the foal under the belief that it was eligible for entry in the stud book – a belief that he said was borne out by the form of the entry in the catalogue, but it subsequently appeared that the foal was not so eligible. Communications passed between the parties and eventually Mr Griffin was sued for £20 damages which a jury in the Stratford County Court awarded him.

The points to which the Union desire to direct the attention of farmers are two, and they both arise out of the conditions of sale. There is no suggestion that the conditions of sale are in any way unfair as between the buyer, the auctioneer, and the seller, nor is it suggested that the auctioneer acted otherwise than in good faith.

Condition No. 9 is as follows:- “The conditions of entry for this sale are that it is open for shire horses entered, or eligible for entry, in the Stud Book. The auctioneers do not guarantee that these conditions have been complied with, and will not hold themselves responsible in the event of any animal being found ineligible for entry in the Stud Book.”

The first point is that while the auctioneers clear themselves of all responsibility in regard to the entries in the catalogue, the seller remains responsible to the purchaser in the event of any misdescription.

It is difficult to believe but it was admitted in evidence, that Mr Griffin’s entry was altered in the auctioneers’ office without consultation with Mr Griffin, and by that alteration the appearance of the foal’s eligibility for entry in the Stud Book was increased. While the responsibility of the auctioneer is effectively guarded against and the responsibility of the seller remains, it appears to my committee that auctioneers ought not to make any alteration in the seller’s form of entry without prior consultation with the seller.

The second point, and one which largely accounts for the judge’s decision adverse to Mr Griffin, arises from the first sentence of Condition No. 9:- “The conditions of entry for this sale are that it is open for shire horses entered, or eligible for entry, in the Stud Book.”

To the ordinary reader who does not clearly observe the meaning of the sentence it conveys the impression that the sale is open only to shire horses eligible for entry. But of course the sentence properly bears no such interpretation – in fact, it has no practical meaning whatever for it is obvious that every public sale of horses in the country is open for shire horses entered, or eligible for entry and therefore the condition means nothing. Moreover there were entered and sold at the sale many horses which were neither entered nor were eligible for entry. The County Court Judge, however, got it firmly in his mind that the sale was open only to eligible horses and he regarded Mr Griffin as violating one of the conditions of the sale by entering a horse which was not eligible.

As the result of this judicial misunderstanding my committee are of the opinion that Mr Griffin has suffered from a miscarriage of justice and with a view to obviating any such occurrence in future, they urge all farmers and other sellers of horses to scrutinise closely the conditions of any sale to which they propose to send horses for disposal, and they appeal further to auctioneers to carefully revise their conditions of sale so as not to mislead, however unintentionally, the farmers who form the bulk of their clients.

Yours, Richard Lean, Stratford-on-Avon & District Farmers’ Union

Banbury Guardian January 1915