Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1969] 2 AC 31
Whether implied statutory warranty as to suitability for purpose applies
Facts
Hardwick Game Farm (HGF) purchased compounded meals from Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association (SAPPA) to feed their pheasants. Many of the birds died because the feed contained toxins. SAPPA had purchased the supplies from two wholesalers under oral contracts. Their normal course of dealing was evidenced by sales notes containing a clause stating the buyer bore responsibility for latent defects. The wholesalers had purchased the supplies from two parties on their standard terms, which purported to exclude liability for latent defects. HGF recovered damages from SAPPA. SAPPA sought indemnity from their suppliers, who in turn sought indemnity from theirs.
Issues
SAPPA argued their supplier was liable for breach of the implied term of s14 Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the implied warranty of s2(2) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926 that the goods were fit for the purpose for which they were supplied. They contended these implied statutory obligations could not be excluded. The third parties sought to rely on the clauses which, they claimed, absolved them for liability for latent defects. They argued pheasants were not poultry under the 1926 Act and so the statute did not apply. The third parties in turn sought an indemnity from their supplier, repeating SAPPA’s allegations regarding breach of the implied statutory terms.
Decision/Outcome
SAPPA recovered damages. Where goods are supplied for a particular purpose, the statutory obligations apply and cannot be excluded in the contract. Membership of the same trade association was insufficient to rebut the presumption that buyers may rely on the skill of sellers in warranting goods are of merchantable quality. Although pheasants were not poultry for the purposes of the 1926 Act, the warranty still applied and damages were recoverable for harm suffered to pheasants.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1969] 2 AC 31 as a matter of case law. However, readers should note the following material statutory developments.
The Sale of Goods Act 1893 has been repealed and consolidated. The implied terms as to fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality (formerly merchantable quality) are now found in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, principally sections 14(2) and 14(3). The 1979 Act has itself been amended, notably by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, which replaced the concept of ‘merchantable quality’ with ‘satisfactory quality’.
The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926 has been repealed. The relevant regulatory framework for animal feed is now governed principally by EU-derived legislation retained in domestic law, including the Feed (Hygiene and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and related instruments, alongside the Animal Feed (England) Regulations 2010.
The ability to exclude implied statutory terms in business-to-business contracts is now governed by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977), under which exclusion of the implied terms in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 between businesses is subject to a reasonableness test. In consumer contracts, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies and renders such exclusions ineffective. These regimes have superseded the common law approach to exclusion clauses discussed in the case.
The case retains value as an authority on the operation of implied terms across chains of supply contracts and on the scope of reliance on a seller’s skill and judgement, but it must be read in light of the updated statutory framework.
