414 WAERANTY 



DEALERS AND PRIVATE PERSONS AND OTHERS 



We have already had occasion to notice the position of dealers as com- 

 pared with private persons in treating of patent defects. 



In this relation the law makes no distinction between dealers and non- 

 dealers, and hence the former in this respect occupy a decidedly favourable 

 position by reason of their special knowledge. 



In other respects, however, dealers are placed at a disadvantage. So, 

 by the statute, 29 Car. 2 C, 7 S.I., it is enacted that no tradesman, arti- 

 ficer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise 

 any worldly labour, business, or work of their ordinary callings, ujion the 

 Lord's Day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only 

 excepted); and that every person of the age of fourteen years ofi'ending in 

 the premises (that is, in the aforesaid provisions) shall forfeit five shillings. 

 Under this statute it has been held that a horse-dealer cannot sue for a 

 breach of warranty made on the sale of a horse which he purchased on 

 a Sunday (Fennell v. Ridler, 5 B. v. C. 406). A sale, however, on a 

 Sunday, which is not made by the seller or his agent in the exercise of his 

 ordinctry calling, is not void either at common law or under the above 

 statute {Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. v. W. 270, 1838; Drury v. De Fontaiiie, 

 I. Raunt. 131, 1808); and in Bloxsome v. Williams it was held that a 

 person who had bought a horse of a dealer, warranted sound, on a Sunday, 

 but did not know that the vendor was a dealer and exercising his ordinary 

 calling, could sue upon such warranty. The case of Smith v. Sj^ai'roiv 

 (4 Bing. 84, 1827) is important, because in it the judges doul)ted the 

 decision in Bloxsome v. Williams, and referred with high approval to 

 the case of Fennell v. Ridler. Horse-dealers, farmers, and others, there- 

 fore, whose ordinary ccdling, or part of whose ordinary calling, it may 

 be to sell horses, should be careful not to sell or give a warranty upon a 

 Sunday. Otherwise they are liable to have the sale repudiated, and the 

 horse returned upon their hands; or they may find themselves the de- 

 fendants in an action for breach of warranty to which they will have 

 no defence. 



Another respect in which dealers differ from private persons is that 

 of agency. 



In some cases an agent is undoubtedly able to give a warranty. 

 Whether he is or is not so able depends upon the nature of the agency 

 and upon the position of the principal. Horse-dealers and others could 

 hardly carry on their trade unless they were able to delegate their 

 authority to a representative. Such a representative would be known 



