WARRANTIES GENERALLY. 43 



plaintiff replied, " If you say so, I am satisfied." The liorse 

 turned out unsound, but tlie seller did not know it when he 

 made the representation, so that there was no case of fraud. 

 It was held that this was merely an expression of opinion. (a) 

 It is no answer to a demand for the price of a horse rejected 

 as disconform to warranty that the seller lionestly believed 

 the horse possessed of the qualities warranted, if it does not 

 actually possess them. (6) 



All warranties, whether express or implied, apply to the 

 state of the horse at__the^ti me of sale ; (c) except time 

 warranties, such, for example, as " warranted sound for a 

 month." Should a defect show itself soon after sale it is a 

 question of evidence whether or not it amounts to a breach 

 of warranty ; and it lies on a purchaser to show positivel}^ 

 that the horse truly had the diseasa^on him, prior to the sale; 

 for if the horse become unsound after the date of the sale 

 the purchaser has no ground of action against the seller, ((i) 

 Yet the warranty of a future event, if express, is vaUd 

 whether given before or at the time of the sale.(e) 



Thus, a seller after telling the buyer that one of two 

 horses he was about to sell had a cold, agreed to deliver 

 both at the end of a fortnight sound and free from blemish ; 

 at the end of the fortnight the horses were delivered, one 

 with a cough, the other with a swelled leg, a fault that 

 was also apparent at the time of the sale. The seller 

 sued the buyer for the price and a verdict was given for 

 the defendant and a new trial refused, on the ground that 

 the warranty applied not to the time of sale but to a subse- 

 quent period. (/) In another case where a mare, warranted 



(rt) Hopkins v. Tanqueray, 1854, 15 C.B. 130. 



(6) Per Lord Justice-Clerk Hope in Scott, cit. p. 256. 



(c) Eivurt V. Hamilton, 1791, Hume, 667 ; Gilmer v. Galloimy, 1830, 8 S. 420; 

 M'Bey v. Reid, 1842, 4 D. 349 ; Hcndrie v. Stewart, 1842, 4 D. 1417 ; Pollock v. 

 Macadam, 1840, 2 D. 1026. See also Broken v. Boreland, 1848, 10 D. 1460, 

 where chronic disease became acute by the act of the purchaser. 



(fZ) Lord Meadowbank in Wright v. Blackwood, 1833, 11 S. 722; Lord Ben- 

 holme in Uykcs v. Hill, 1860, 22 D. 1.^.23. 



{(■) Eden V. Parkinson, 1781, 2 Doug. 732, a ; Pasley, cit. 



(/) Liddard v. Kain, 1824, 2 Bing. S.C. 183. 



