1-56 



FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 



Sale of goods 

 "with all 

 faults" ex- 

 cludes latent 

 defects. 



Unless there 

 be an express 

 Warranty. 



Or Fraud is 



[tliere]iipoii, unless sueli Representation, &c. be made in 

 n-riting, signed by the part j to be charged there^\ith." The 

 signature of an agent mil not satisfy this section (y) . And 

 one pai-tner signing in the name of and by the express au- 

 thority of his lirm will make himself only liable (s) . 



It is now well settled {a) that if goods are sold expressly 

 " mth all faults," the seller is not boimd to disclose latent 

 defects, and is therefore not liable to an action in respect 

 of them, although he was aware of them at the time of sale, 

 unless there be an express Warranty against some particu- 

 lar defect, or luiless some ai-tifice or fraud was practised to 

 prevent the vendee from discerning such defects ; there- 

 fore, in effecting such a sale of a Horse, it is best for the 

 seller to say nothing, and let the piu'chaser inspect the 

 Horse, and so judge for himself. 



So far as the description goes, there is an express War- 

 ranty against any particular defect, which is excluded by 

 that description. Accordingly, where an advertisement for 

 the sale of a ship described her as a " copper-fastened ves- 

 sel," adding that the vessel was to be taken "Avith all faults, 

 A\ithout any allowance for any defects whatsoever ; " and 

 it appeared that she was only partially copper-fastened ; it 

 was held that the vendor was liable on the groimd that she • 

 was warranted to be cop2:)er- fastened, and that " with all 

 faidts" applies to such faults only as a copper-fastened ves- 

 sel may have (/'>). But where a vessel, which was described 

 as "teak-built" was sold, "to be taken with all faults," 

 " with any allowance for any defect or error whatsoever," 

 and it turned out that she was not "teak-built," it was held 

 that this was a misdescription of the vessel, which came 

 within the term " error," and that the vendor was not 

 liable as for a breach of Warranty (c) . 



At one time Lord Keuyon held that a seller iras hound 

 to disclose to the buyer all latent defects kno^Ti to him, 

 and that bujdng '■'' ivith ail faults" v^'ithoiit a Warranty 

 must be understood to relate only to those faults which 

 the buyer could have discovered, or with which the seller 

 was unacquainted {d). 



However, Lord Elleuborough overruled this decision, 



{>/) Swiff. V. Jewshunj, L. R.., 9 

 Q. B. 301, Ex. Ch., reversing 6'. C. 

 siibnoin. Sicift y. Wbtterbottom, "Li. 

 R., 8 Q. B. 244. 



{z) 3IasoH V. WUIinim, 28 L. T., 

 N. S. 232, February, 1873. 



(rt) Chit. Contr. 10th ed. 418. 



\b) Shepherd v. Kain, 5 B. Sc Aid. 

 240. 



(c) Taylor v. Bitllen, 5 Ex. 779. 



(V) Jlle/n.sh V. Motteu.r, Peak. Cas. 

 115. 



