Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912]

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912] UKHL 2, a significant English contract law case, was decided by the House of Lords and revolves around the issues of misrepresentation and contractual terms. The case predates the introduction of damages for negligent misrepresentation under Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] and is regarded today as having been wrongly decided in the context of negligent misrepresentation.

During the economic boom in the rubber trade in 1910, Heilbut, Symons & Co, acting as merchants, underwrote shares of a purported rubber business, the Filisola Rubber and Produce Estates, Limited, located in Mexico. Buckleton, the plaintiff, inquired about the shares, and in response to his questions, a manager at Heilbut confirmed that they were bringing out a rubber company. Relying on this representation, Buckleton purchased a substantial number of shares. However, the company's actual rubber assets fell far short of expectations, leading to poor share performance. Buckleton initiated legal proceedings, claiming a breach of warranty.

The trial court found that Heilbut had made a misrepresentation but not fraudulently. Despite this, the trial court held that there was a warranty in the statement regarding the rubber company. Nevertheless, Buckleton did not succeed in his claim at trial.

In its judgment, the House of Lords held that no damages could be awarded because the misrepresentation was not fraudulent. Lord Moulton identified two scenarios in which the action could succeed. Firstly, if the plaintiff could demonstrate fraudulent misrepresentation or its equivalent, characterised by reckless disregard for the truth. Secondly, if there was an intention (animus contrahendi) to be bound by a promise, a collateral contract might exist, holding Heilbut to their representation. However, Lord Moulton emphasised the rarity of such collateral contracts and, on the specific facts, none was found.

The significance of Heilbut, Symons & Co lies in upholding the principle that a person is not liable for damages due to an innocent misrepresentation, regardless of the method or form of the attack. Lord Moulton underscored the importance of maintaining this principle and emphasised that in the absence of evidence indicating an intention to create contractual liability for the accuracy of the statement, a representation remains just that—a representation and nothing more.

While the case would today likely be categorised as involving at least negligent misrepresentation, it retains relevance for the broader principle that representations become part of a contract when such an intention is evident. Subsequent cases, such as Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957], have further clarified that the informational balance between a buyer and seller is pivotal in determining the true intentions, with a preference for the expectations of non-commercial parties who rely on representations.
Back to blog

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.