FRAUD. 33 



misrepresentations regarding the capabilities of his horses, 

 and such praises as a seller is wont to bestow upon them so 

 as to enhance their value. But once the buyer gives the 

 seller to understand that he is relying on his statements, and 

 that it is on the faith of them he is going to purchase, the 

 law regards them as fraudulent, if false, and will give him 

 remedies on such a contract.(a) The redress obtainable on 

 the ground of fraud depends, in some cases, upon whether or 

 not error has been combined with it regarding the horse pur- 

 chased or the price. (6) When essential error is combined 

 with fraud which gives rise to the contract, the contract is 

 null ah initio,{c) but even where no material error co-exists, if 

 it appears that a party would not have entered into a con- 

 tract of sale had he not been fraudulently led into it, he is 

 justly said to have been deceived ; and he may sue for a 

 reduction of the contract on the ground of the fraud, or plead 

 a personal exception when he is sued for the price, unless 

 barred by delay ; though these pleas will have no effect in 

 questions with bona jide assignees. (c?) But a sale of a horse 

 induced by fraud, where the fraud is such that it has given 

 rise to it, is not void but voidable at the option of the injured 

 party, provided there be no material error also.(e) The sale is 

 consequently valid until rescinded, and the principle of rescis- 

 sion is restitutio in integrum ; to place both parties in the 

 same position as they were before the sale took p]ace.(/) This 

 is accomplished by the return of horse and price, where it is 

 still in the buyer's hands ; or, when that is impossible, as — 

 e.g., from death, or by his having sold it, by a claun of 

 damages against the party committing the fraud. (j/) When 



(a) B. Pr. Ill ; B.C. i. 466, n. 

 (h) B. Pr. 13, 13 A, § 36. 



(c) § 4. See Blackburn, J., in Kennedy v. Panama, tOc, Co., 1867, L.R. 2 Q.B. 

 580, .587. 



(d) Ersk. iii. 1, 16. 



(e) B.C. i. 262. 



(/) Western Bank v. Addic, 1867, 5 M. (H.L.) 80 ; Ilouldsworth v. City of Glas- 

 (jow Bank, 1880, 7 R.H.L. 53. 



[g) Cases cit., note /, see B.C. i. 262 and note; Graham v. Western Banl; 

 1865, 3 M. 617. 



D 



