SALE AND WARRANTY BY AN AGENT. 131 



the Servant having a general authority to sell, is in a 

 condition to warrant, and the master has not notified to 

 the world that the general authority is circumscribed (i). 

 And if' a person keeping Livery stables, and having a 

 Horse to sell, directs his Servant not to warrant him, and 

 the Servant does nevertheless warrant him, the master is 

 liable on the Warranty, because the Servant was acting 

 within the general scope of his authority, and the public 

 cannot be supposed to be cognizant of any private conver- 

 sation between the master and Servant [k). And where 

 the owner of a Horse sold by a Lwery-sfable keeper with a 

 "Warranty went to the buyer and requested to have the 

 Horse back, stating that he did not authorize the War- 

 ranty of Soundness, and the buyer refused to give it up, 

 saying, " I know nothing of you, I bought the Horse of 

 Mr. Osborne ;" such a refusal was held to be no waiver of 

 the Warranty (/}. 



But if the owner of a Horse were to send a Stranger WaiTautyby 

 to a Fair, with express directions not to warrant the ^ ^i^- w^^^- 

 Horse, and the latter acted contrary to the orders, the one. ° 

 pm'chaser could only have recourse to the person who 

 actually sold the Horse, and the owner would not be liable 

 on the Warranty, because the Servant was not acting 

 within the scope of his employment (ju). 



But if the master, under such circumstances, is un- Master un- 

 willing to stand to the Warranty given by his Servant, ^^^^^?l\- 

 he is bound to take back the Horse and return the money Servants? 

 if it has been paid {m). And on this point Lord Abinger, Warranty. 

 C. B., said, "Put the ordinary case of a Servant employed 

 to sell a Horse, but expressly forbid to warrant him sound. 

 Is it contended that the buyer, induced by the Warranty 

 to give ten times the price which he would have given for 

 an imsound Horse, when he discovers the Horse to be 

 unsound, is not entitled to rescind the contract ? This 

 would be to say, that though the Principal is not bound 

 by the false Pepresentation of an Agent, yet he is entitled 

 to take advantage of that false Representation, for the 

 purpose of obtaining a contract beneficial to himself, which 

 he could not have obtained without it («) . 



(0 Per Bayley, J., Fichering v. (?) Best v. Osborne, 2 C. & P. 74. 



Busk, 15 East, 45; Brady y. Todd, \ni) Per Ashurst, J., i^i^ww v.ifcur- 



9 C. B., N. S. 604. rhon, 3 T. R. 761 ; and Scotland 



{k) VerAahnrfit, J., Fcnnv. Rar- {Bank) v. Watson, I Dow, 45. 



rison, 3 T. R. 760; see also Howard [n) Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. (SbW. 



T. SJieicard, L. R., 2 C. P. 148. 381. 



k2 



