Frost v The Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd 24 Feb 1905 [1905] 1 KB 608, CA

A dairy supplied milk contaminated with typhoid germs, causing the customer's wife's death. The court held the dairy company liable for breaching the implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, confirming that the milk must be fit for consumption.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Frost, purchased milk daily from the defendants, The Aylesbury Dairy Company, for his family’s consumption. A pass-book was kept which contained a statement of the precautions taken by the defendants to ensure the purity of their milk. The plaintiff’s wife contracted typhoid fever from consuming the milk, which was found to be contaminated with typhoid germs, and she subsequently died. The plaintiff brought an action to recover expenses related to her illness and funeral. It was established that the defendants were not negligent and had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent contamination; the defect was latent and not discoverable by the defendants.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether, on the sale of the milk, there was an implied warranty by the defendants that the milk was reasonably fit for consumption, as per section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. A key question was whether the plaintiff had made known the purpose for which the milk was required so as to show that he relied on the defendants’ skill or judgment. The defendants argued that the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) should apply, especially as they were not negligent.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that there was an implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, s. 14(1), that the milk was reasonably fit for its purpose, namely consumption.

Reasoning of the Court

Lord Justice Collins M.R. delivered the leading judgment. He determined that the case fell squarely within the exception to the caveat emptor rule provided by the statute. The purpose for which the milk was required—consumption—was implicitly made known by the very nature of the transaction between a householder and a milk dealer.

The buyer buys from a dealer in milk, and the nature of the transaction of itself shews that the buyer implicitly makes known to the seller that the purpose for which he requires the milk is that it should be fit for consumption as food, and the seller, a dealer in milk, must be taken to know that to be the purpose for which the buyer requires it. The case, therefore, is one in which the buyer has made known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required.

The court reasoned that reliance on the seller’s skill and judgment could be inferred from the circumstances. By dealing with a company that specialised in supplying milk, the plaintiff was naturally relying on their expertise to provide a product fit for consumption. The fact that the defect was latent and could not be discovered by the defendants through reasonable care was irrelevant to the question of breach of warranty. The warranty is an absolute obligation, not one dependent on the absence of negligence.

The point that the defect was a latent one, not to be discovered by any amount of skill, seems to me to be nihil ad rem. We are not dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the seller, but with the breach of an absolute condition or warranty… Therefore, although the defendants were not guilty of any negligence, and the defect was one which could not be discovered at the time, there was a breach of warranty.

Implications

This case is a significant authority on the implied condition of fitness for purpose in contracts for the sale of goods, particularly foodstuffs. It established that when a customer buys food from a dealer, there is a strong inference that the buyer relies on the dealer’s skill to provide a product that is safe to eat. The decision reinforces the strict liability nature of the warranty under s. 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. A seller can be liable for breaching this warranty even if they have taken all reasonable precautions and are entirely without fault. This provided a vital layer of protection for consumers, shifting the risk of latent defects in goods from the unsuspecting buyer to the seller, who is better placed to bear such risks as a cost of business.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed; the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

Source: Frost v The Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd 24 Feb 1905 [1905] 1 KB 608, CA