CONSTRUCTION OF WARRANTIES. 53 



limit or extend it. (a) Thus, where a horse was sold with a 

 written Avarranty (" warranted sound, free from vice, steady in 

 single and double harness ") had a cough which was laiown 

 to both buyer and seller, which developed into pleurisy, con- 

 gestion of the lungs and bronchitis, and after protracted 

 medical treatment it ultimately recovered, it was held to be 

 unsound ; and that the buyer having rejected it, the seller 

 was held bound to receive it back and to pay the price with 

 expenses of treatment. (6) It was argued that as the buyer 

 knew of the cold at the time of purchase he must take the 

 risk of the animal getting better ; but Lord Giftbrd observed : 

 " I cannot so read in law the written warranty ; it is absolute 

 and contams no exception, and it would be contrary to every 

 prmciple to read the warrandice as if it had contained the 

 Avords ' excepting ahvays the cold under wdiich the mare is 

 labouring.' That would be to make a totall}?- new bargain 

 for the parties entirely different from that which they 

 have made for themselves. If the defender had meant 

 to except anything from his warranty he should have 

 said so." 



The following cases illustrate the strictness of the construe- 

 tion of warranties (c) : — A warranty, " Received £100 for a bay 

 gelding got by ' Cheshire Cheese ' warranted sound," was held 

 to cover soundness only, and not to apply to the pedigree, (f?) 

 A warranty that a horse is " a good drawer and pulls quietly 

 in harness," will not be satisfied on proof that he is a good 

 drawcr.(e) Again, a horse warranted " sound and quiet in all 

 respects," must be quiet in harness ; (/) but a warranty 

 in these terms, " Eeceived from A £60 for a black horse 

 rising five years, quiet to ride and drive, and warranted 



(rt) PicJcerimj v. Dowson, 1813, 4 Taunt. 785, Benj. 617 ; Dickson v. Zizinia, 

 1851, 20 L.J., C.P. 72. 



{h) Gardiner v. M'Leavji, 1880, 7 R. 612. 



(c) See Richardson v. Brown, cit., § 39, p. 50. 



(d) Dickinson v. Gapp, 1821, cit. in Budd, 8 Bing. 50. 



(c) Colthcrd V. Puncheon, 1822, 2 D. and R. 10. The Court held these con- 

 vertible terms. 



(/) Smith V. Parsons, 1837, 8 C. and P. 199. 



