PATENT DEFECTS. 133 



his behalf; that the plaintiff sent the Pony to the de- 

 fendant, and was willing to sell it to A., but that the 

 defendant had no authority from A. to purchase it {>•). 



PATENT DEFECTS. 



A general Warranty does not cover Patent defects, Not covered 

 being such as are obvious to the buyer. As if a Horse ^y ^ W*^" 

 warranted perfect be minus an Eye or a Tail (s), or a ^^"^ ^' 

 House warranted to be in perfect repair, be without Roof 

 or Windows (if), or, " as if one sells Purple to another, and 

 saith to him that this is Scarlet, this Warrant is to no pur- 

 pose, for that the other may perceive this, and this gives no 

 cause of action to him. To warrant a thing that may be 

 perceived by sight is not good" {u). 



From these examples the proper principle regarding In what they 

 Patent defects may clearly be drawn ; they must be such ''°^'^^s*- 

 Defects as a man, unless he is perfectly incompetent to 

 conduct business, cannot help observing. For where a 

 person sees, or has the opportunity of seeing, goods before 

 purchase, Caveat emptor is the Pule of law ; and a man 

 who does not perceive the loss of an Eye or Tail in a 

 Horse, or the absence of the Poof or Windows from a 

 House, or does not distinguish between Purple and 

 Scarlet by the light of day, cannot expect the law to 

 give him any assistance, as every man making a bargain 

 is expected to have ordinary perception. Whether a 

 defect is Patent or not, or the purchaser has used ordinary 

 care, is a question for the consideration of the Jury. 



Although the loss of an Eye is a breach of a Warranty How far the 

 of Soundness {x), it has been laid down, that " where one i^pa^iiT 

 buys a Horse upon warranting him to have both his Eyes, 

 and he have but one Eye, he is remediless ; for it is a thing 

 which lies in his own conusance, and such Warranty or 

 affirmation is not material nor to be regarded" {y). But 

 this seems to assume that the Eye has entirely disappeared, 

 or has been so obvious! y damaged, that it must lie in the 

 conusance of the buyer ; and nothing is said with regard to 

 a loss of sight, where there is little apparent injury to the 

 Eyes; for a Horse may appear to the majority of people 



(?•) Price V. Morgan, 2 M. & W. 507. 

 55. («) Bailey v. Merrell, 3 Bulst. 95. 



(») 2 Bla. Com. 165 ; and per \x) Butterfield v. Burroughs, 1 



Hank, J., Year Book, 13 Hen. 4, Salk. 211. 

 p. 1. (?/) Year Book, 13 Hen. 4, p. 1 ; 



{t) Bger v. Hargrave, 10 Vesey, Bayleij v. Merrell, Cro. Eliz. 389, 



