SALE FOR A SPECIFIED PURPOSE. 7o 



ticular purpose wlien that purpose is expressly stated. If it 

 had been represented that the horse, being entire, would run 

 well in single harness, and the defender had bought him for 

 that purpose, a question might have arisen in which the 

 statutory provision would have applied. The contract as it 

 stands does not fall under that branch of the clause at all, but 

 simply under the first branch, wdiich places the goods with all 

 their faults, at the risk of the purchaser."(«) Lord President 

 Inglis thus further elucidates this matter : — " The meaning 

 of the clause is that there is to be an exception when the 

 subject of sale is sold, not for the ordinary purpose, or for 

 one of several ordinary purposes, but for a specified and par- 

 ticular purpose which is expressly mentioned in the contract. 

 Thus, if you sell oats, (6) it may be to feed horses, or for oat- 

 meal,(c) or for seed, and if you sell oats for seed,((:?) and the 

 contract bears that, and the seed will not germinate, no doubt 

 the statute will hold you have warranted it. But you can 

 never say that goods have been sold for a ' specified and 

 particular purpose,' if they have been sold for the ordinary 

 purpose for which all such goods are sold. Therefore, in my 

 view of the clause, it does not apply to the present case. If 

 the defender could have shown that this was not in any sense 

 an entire horse, that might have raised a different question, 

 though it would be difficult even then to get over the words 

 of the statute, that the goods with all their faults shall be at 

 the risk of the purchaser."(?) It was held accordingly that 

 the defender was not entitled to reject the horse as having 

 been sold for a particular and specified purpose for which he 

 was unfit. 



In another case a farmer bought from a cattle dealer a 

 number of milch cows for dairy purposes. Two proved unfit 

 for use, and the buyer refused to pay for them. In an action 



(a) Ilamilton, cit. p. 841. 



{b) See Hutchison v. Henry, 1S67, 6 M. 57. 



(c) Smart v. Bcrj, 1852, 14 D. 912. 



(rf) See Hardie v. Axistin db M' Asian, 1870, 8 U. 798. 



(e) Hamilton, cit. p. 842. 



