SUNDAY DEALING. 37 



morning; and accordingly on Sunday the defendant in- 

 spected and approved them, and afterwards kept them for 

 some time and promised to pay for them ; it was held, 

 that although the original contract was on Sunday, yet as 

 they continued in the possession of the defendant, who 

 afterwards promised to pay for them, this subsequent pro- 

 mise was sufficient on a quant urn meruit, or as a ratification 

 of the agreement of the Saturday (c). 



But a party cannot sue on a breach of warranty if he Breach of 

 take it on a Sunday from a pgrson he knows to be a Horse- warranty 

 dealer. However, where an innocent party brings an Sunday, 

 action on the breach of a warranty given to him by a 

 Jlorsedealer on a Sunday, it is not competent for the de- 

 fendant to set up his own breach of the law as an answer 

 to the action ; and this was so held in the case of IjIox- 

 some V. Williams {d), where an action was brought on the 

 warranty of a Horse, and an objection was taken that it 

 had been given on a Sunday. It ajipeared that the de- 

 fendant was a coach proprietor and Horsedealer, and that 

 the plaintiff's son was travelling on a Sunday in the de- 

 fendant's coach, and while the Horses were changing he 

 made a verbal bargain with the defendant for the Horse 

 in question, for the price of thirty-nine guineas ; the latter 

 warranted the Horse to be sound, and not more than seven 

 years old. The Horse was delivered to the plaintiff on 

 the following Tuesday, and the price was then paid ; there 

 was nothing in evidence to show that the plaintiff's son 

 knew at the time when he made the bargain that the 

 defendant exercised the trade of a Horsedealer. The 

 Horse was unsound, and seventeen years old. It was 

 objected, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff 

 could not recover, on the ground that the bargain having 

 been made on a Sunda// was void within the 29 Car. 2, 

 c. 7, s. 2. The learned judge overruled the objection, and 

 the plaintiff obtained a verdict for the price of the Horse. 

 The Court of King's Bench discharged a rule for a new 

 trial, and Mr. Justice Bayley said, " In this case there was 

 no note in writing of the bargain, and on the Sunday all 

 rested in parol, and nothiag was done to bind the bargain. 

 The contract, therefore, was not valid until the Horse was 

 delivered to and accepted by the defendant. The terms on 

 which the sale was afterwards to take place were only 

 specified on the Sunday, and those terms were incorporated 

 in the sale made on the subsequent day." 



(c) WUUamsv. Paul, 6 Bing. 653. {d) See note ib), ante. 



