FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 157 



and said, " I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of that used to con- 

 case, although I feel the greatest respect for the Judge ^^^^ them, 

 by whom it Avas decided. Where an article is sold ' uith 

 all faults,' I think it is quite immaterial how many be- 

 longed to it within the knowledge of the seller, unless he 

 used some artifice to disguise them, and to prevent their 

 being discovered by the piu^chaser. The very object of 

 introducing such stipulations is to put the purchaser on 

 his guard, and to throw upon him the bmxlen of ex- 

 amining all faults, both secret and apparent. I may be 

 possessed of a Horse I know to have many faults, and I 

 wish to get rid of him for whatever smn he will fetch. 

 I desire my servant to dispose of him, and instead of 

 giving a Warranty of soundness, to sell him ' icith all 

 Faults.' Having thus laboriously freed myself from 

 responsibility, am I to be liable, if it be afterwards dis- 

 covered that the Horse was unsomid ? Why did not the 

 purchaser examine him in the Market, when exposed to 

 sale ? By acceding to buy the Horse ' u-ith all faults,' 

 he takes upon himself the risk of latent or secret faults, 

 and calculates accordingly the price which he gives. It 

 would be most inconvenient and unjust, if men could not, 

 by using the strongest tenns which language affords, 

 obviate disputes concerning the quality of the goods 

 which they sell. In a contract such as this, I think there 

 is no fraud, imless the seller by positive means renders ' it 

 impossible for the purchaser to detect latent faidts' " (e). 



Therefore, the meaning of a Horse being sold " icith 

 all /lis Faults " is, that the pm'chaser shall make use of 

 his eyes and understanding to discover what Faults there 

 are ; and the seller is not answerable for them if he does 

 not make use of any Fraud or Practice to conceal 

 them (_/'). But where, on the sale of a House in South 

 Audley Street, the seller being conscious of a Defect in 

 the main wall, plastered it up and papered it over; it 

 was held that as the seller had expressly concealed it, the 

 purchaser might recover (^7). 



It would appear from this case, that where a Horse has 

 been sold ^Ucith all Ids faults,''' and artificial means have 

 been used to conceal some Defect, the vendor would be 

 liable to the purchaser for such conduct. 



((') Bagleliole v. Walters, 3 Camp. 784-. 

 loG. {g) Case cited by Gibbs, J., in 



(/) Pickering v. Doivson, 4 Taunt. Fickering v. Doivson, 4 Taunt. 785. 



