DAMAGES. 211 



condition of goods, the vendor is responsible for all injury Misrepresen- 

 which is the direct and natural result of the purchaser's tation. 

 acting on the faith of his representation. Therefore, where 

 a cattle dealer fraudulently represented a cow to be free 

 from infectious disease when he knew that it was not so, 

 and the purchaser placed it with five others which caught 

 the disease and died, the latter was held entitled to recover 

 as damages, in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, 

 the value of all the cows (.?•) . And the same rule would be 

 applied where there was no fraud, but the beast was war- 

 ranted free from disease, and both parties contemplated its 

 being placed with other stock {y). 



It is illegal to bring a glandered Horse into a public 

 market or fair (s), but there is nothing illegal in a simple 

 sale ; therefore a person who sold a glandered Horse with- 

 out a Warranty and without Misrepresentation was held 

 not responsible for disease communicated to other Horses 

 of the purchaser's in the stable to which he removed it {n). 

 But a breach of statutory duty may not constitute the 

 foundation for a private right of action. A statement 

 that the pm"chaser of a Horse must take it "with all faults" 

 and that the vendor will give no warranty with it, and will 

 refuse all future claim for compensation (where the vendor 

 does nothing to conceal the defect), relieves the vendor 

 from all liability in respect of any defect in the Horse 

 itself [h). If such a statement were followed by a decla- 

 ration of the vendor (who knew the reverse) that he knew 

 the animal to be free from objection, there might be 

 ground for an action of deceit (c). Thus where a statute 

 prohibited persons from sending animals infected with a 

 contagious disease to market, and inflicted penalties on 

 any person so sending them, the act of sending them, if 

 known to be so infected, was a public offence, but did not 

 amount by implication to a representation that they were 

 sound, and did not itself raise as between the vendor of the 

 animals and the purchaser of them any right of the pm*- 



{x) MuUet V. Mason, L. R., 1 C. 27 L. J., Ex. 45. And see per 



P. 559 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 299 ; Mayne Willes, J., L. R., 1 C. P. 563. 



on Damages, 3rd ed. 167; Sherrod {b) Ward v. Hobbs, L. R., 3 Q. 



V. Longdon, 21 Iowa, 518. B. D. 150; 47 L. J., Q. B. 90. 



(v) Smith V. Green, L. R., 1 C. Affirmed by H. L., L. R., 4 App. 



P. D. 92; 45 L. J., C. P. 28. And Cas. 13; 48 L. J., Q. B. 281. 



see Bradlci/ v. Lea, 14 Allen, 20. Reversing judgment of the Queen'a 



(r) 41 & 42 Vict. c. 74, s. 32, Bench Division, L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 



Ord. 442. 331 ; 4(3 L. J., Q. B. 473. 



{a) Hill V. r,alh, 2 H. & N. 299; (r) Ibid, per Lord Cairns, C. 



r2 



