78 REJECTION. 



horses." Lord Wood also said : — " I by no means think that 

 the pursuers wore tied down to exact nothing from the horse 

 beyond some moderate Avork. But there is a great difference 

 betwixt that and extra work of a severe kind, which, although 

 it might not be more severe than other horses are occasionally 

 put to and could do, it may be, with reasonable safety, must 

 always be attended with some risk, more or less, even to a 

 well-trained and completely seasoned horse." But if the 

 seller request the buyer to keep the horse and give it further 

 trial, and the buyer keeps it for a time and returns it as 

 unfit for the purpose for which it is sold, then the onus of 

 proving that the unfitness was caused by something occurring 

 subsequent to the sale is thrown on the seller if he raise an 

 action for the price.(a) 



The trial of a horse sent with a view to purchase is not 

 limited to the intending purchaser himself; he is at liberty 

 to employ a competent person to ride it. (6) 



60. Rejection. — " The time within which a horse ought 

 to be returned depends very much upon the period when 

 the defect is discovered." (c) If it is manifest, the challenge 

 must be made instantly, and when a fault is easily discover- 

 able, by such examination as one skilled in horses usually 

 makes, a buyer must try the horse and determine whether 

 to keep or reject it without undue delay, the legal inference, 

 if the challenge is not made immediately, being that the 

 buyer is satisfied. ((Z) 



If a buyer has had no opportunity of examining a horse, 

 or if it suffers from a defect which is not apparent at first 

 sight, the buyer does not lose his remedy by failure to reject 



{a) See § 61, and Crawford v. Hay, 1888, 4 S.L. Rev. 270. 

 (6) Camoys Ld. v. Scurr, 1840, 9 C. and P. 383. 



(c) Lord Eldon in Ocddcs v. Pennine/ton, 1817, 5 Dow, 159, horse kept two 

 months ; Cossnr v. Marjoribanhs, 1826, 4 S. 685. 



(d) Ersk. iii. 3, 10 ; Yates v. Pym, 1816, 6 Taunt. 446 ; Snuirt v. Beg, 1852, 

 14 D. 912; B. Pr. 99. See .ilao Clerk v. Eliot, 1836, 15 S. 253, where the rule 

 was applied that a party who takes back his carriage from the yard where it has 

 been repaired, and uses it for a considerable time, is barred from refusing to pay 

 the coachbuilder's account on alleged insufficiency of the repairs. 



