SALE FOR A SPECIFIED PURPOSE. 73 



unfit for the purpose, and the price Avas ordered to be 

 repeated, (a) This case may be contrasted with another, 

 Avhere a young lady purchased a pair of young carriage 

 horses, which she was apprised were " at grass, and of 

 course not in good order ;" she sent them to be broken, and 

 rejected one as restive and refractory. It was sold judicially, 

 and afterwards turned out an excellent carriage horse ; the 

 lady was found liable for the price.(6) 



Again, a gentleman bought a pair of horses to work 

 together in the same carriage, and was informed by the seller 

 that, although he knew the one well, and would be answer- 

 able for it, he was not sure as to the other, as he had lately 

 got it. On trial they would not work together ; and it w^as 

 held that, having been bought as a pair, and for immediate 

 use, the above notice, and an allegation that on further 

 training they worked well together, were irrelevant to relieve 

 the seller of liability to repay the price. (c) And in an 

 English case, a pole for a carriage was bought and supplied ; 

 it broke, and damaged the horses. It was held that the 

 plaintiff was entitled to recover the price of the pole, and 

 also a sum in name of damage to the horses, should a jury 

 to whom the case was remitted find the damage to be the 

 natural result of the breaking of the polo, (d) 



By the Mercantile LaAv Amendment Act,(e) however, if a 

 seller does not know of any defect in a horse he is not held 

 to have warranted it ; but if lie sell it expressly for a specified 

 and particular purpose, then he is held to have warranted it, 

 and on disconformity to the warranty of fitness for that pur- 

 pose the buyer can reject it. But to bring a case within 

 this implied warranty, the specified and particular purpose 

 for which a horse is sold must be something different from 

 the ordinary purpose for which horses of the kind purchased 



(a) Campbell v. Mason, 1801, Hume, 678. 



(6) Earl of Wemy»s v. Seton, 1802, Hume, 682. 



(c) Dundas v. Fairhairn, 1797, Hume, 677. 



{(l) Randall v. Newson, 1877, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 102. 



(c) 19 & 20 Vict. e. 60, § 5. 



