IN SEARCH OP A HORSE. 2T9 



to be that its value is arbitrary, and not fixed by 

 any given standard. 



In Prosser v. Hooper, 1 Moore, 106, " The phain- 

 tiff bought saifron Of an inferior quality, which, 

 having kept six months and sold part, he then ob- 

 jected that the article was not saffron. Held in an 

 action, for a breach of warranty, that from the length 

 of time and the inferior price given, it was such an 

 article as the plaintiff intended to purchase." 



The warranty was merely that the sale-note called 

 the article sold by the name of '' saffron." Vide 

 also Jones v. Bright, 3 M. and P. 155. 



This case of Prosser v. Hooper, may perhaps have 

 given rise to the erroneous but common opinion here- 

 after mentioned, that a low price necessarily implies 

 that no warranty is given. 



I shall quote a few more cases w^hich, while they 

 sustain the doctrine of implied warranty, explain the 

 nature of the liability incurred by fraudulent repre- 

 sentation, being the second division of my subject. 



In Mellish v. Motten, Peake's Cas. 156, "The 

 seller of a ship is bound to disclose to the buyer all 

 latent defects known to him." 



The ship was purchased with all faults ; on taking 



