o2 COXSTRUCTIOX OF WARRANTIES. 



warrandice under the second branch of the same section, the 

 mare having been sold as fit for a specific pur^^iose. Lord 

 Deas, holding that the pursuer had knowledge, said : — " The 

 case comes Avithin the class of cases in which the Act does 

 not require an express Avarranty," and the common law of 

 Scotland holds a seller not entitled to enforcement of the 

 price. , . . He knew that she had not been driven regu- 

 larly in double and single harness after having been properly 

 broken, which was obviously the meaning in which the repre- 

 sentation was calculated and intended to be understood. 

 That I take to be a sale which the law holds to have been 

 made on a false representation, known to be false, in a 

 matter in essentialibus of the contract." It is thought that 

 the implied warranty of quality would still subsist regarding 

 patent defects(a) if the buyer had no opportunit}'' of ex- 

 amination ; but, if he had, caveat emptor would apply. (6) 

 ■ If, however, the defect was latent and material, and undis- 

 coverable till some time after trial, the buyer would be entitled 

 to reject, or have the sale reduced. (c) Where there are 

 any express conditions in warranties either regarding sound- 

 ness, vices, or caj)abilities of a horse, they rule the question ; 

 but vague assurances are not to be held as express agree- 

 ments altering the implied engagements, (f/) Express war- 

 ranties usually refer to such matters as age, height, temper, 

 time for rejection, &c. ; and where any peculiarity is to be 

 guarded against, or included, it must be inserted specially in 

 the warranty, and it is a question of evidence how far the 

 condition has been fulfilled. (e) 



40. The Construction of Warranties. — When a warranty 

 is given with a horse, it may be given in writing or verbally ; 

 and where there is writing, parole evidence is inadmissible to 



(a) Ralston v. Rohb, 1808, M. v. Sale, Appx. 6 ; Uardic v. Austin, 1870, 8 M. 798. 

 (h) Scott V. Hannah, 1815, Hume, 702. 



(c) Cooper (t A ves V. Clydesdale Shippinrj Co., 1863, 1 M. 677. As to conceal- 

 ment, § 32. 



(d) B. Pr. 129. 



(0 Scott V. Steel, 1857, 20 D. 253 ; Thomson v. Miller, 1859, 21 D. 726. 



