Hummingbird Motors Ltd v Hobbs [1986] RTR 276
Whether a negligent statement made in good faith constitutes a misrepresentation
Facts
The defendant bought a car which appeared to be in excellent condition. The odometer reading on the car displayed a mileage of 34,900 miles, although the car had in fact actually travelled 80,000 miles in total. The seller of the car did not tell the defendant that the odometer reading was actually incorrect, but simply stated to the defendant that there was no warranty as to the mileage of the car. The defendant sold the car to the claimant shortly afterwards, and stated that the mileage was correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. When the claimant discovered that the mileage was in fact inaccurate, it commenced an action for breach of warranty and misrepresentation. The judge at first instance found in favour of the claimant. The defendant appealed.
Issues
The issue in this context was whether statements made, where the maker genuinely believes them to be true, can constitute a misrepresentation when the maker’s belief is negligently held.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision at first instance. The defendant was not aware that the odometer reading was in fact incorrect, and had acted in good faith during the transaction. This meant that the defendant’s statement in terms of stating that the mileage was correct to the best of his knowledge and belief was correct and was as a result therefore, not a misrepresentation. The fact that the belief was negligently held was irrelevant.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hummingbird Motors Ltd v Hobbs [1986] RTR 276. The core legal principle — that a statement made honestly and in good faith does not constitute an actionable misrepresentation, even if the belief underlying it was negligently formed — remains good law and is consistent with the broader framework of misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Readers should note, however, that the article does not address the statutory remedy of damages for negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the 1967 Act, which could be relevant in factually similar situations where a representor cannot discharge the burden of proving reasonable grounds for belief. The 1967 Act has not been materially amended in ways that affect this area. No subsequent Court of Appeal or Supreme Court authority has overruled or substantially qualified this decision. The article remains broadly accurate as a statement of the law on this point.
