406 WARRANTY 



General Warranty. There are several kinds of warranty. It may 

 be general, as where the seller says : " I warrant the horse ", or " the horse 

 is sound". In such a case all the buyer has to do, if the horse is unsound, 

 is to prove that it was so at the time it was sold. 



Qualified Warranty. Or there may be a qualified warranty, a& 

 where the seller says: "The horse is sound to the best of my belief". In 

 this case, if the horse is not sound, the buyer must be prepared to prove, 

 not only that the horse was unsound at the time of sale, but that the seller 

 knew of such unsoundness. 



A statement " that the buyer might depend upon it that the horse was 

 perfectly quiet and free from vice" has been held to be a warranty (Cave 

 v. Colman, 3 Man and E. 2, 1828). 



Another kind of warranty is that known as a limited warranty, where 

 any objections a buyer may have to make must be made within a stated 

 time, or the horse must be retained with all faults. 



This is a kind of warranty commonly employed at public sales and 

 repositories. For instance, horses sold by Messrs. Tattersall at Albert 

 Gate, at their Monday sales, " not answering the description, must be 

 returned before five o'clock on Wednesday evening next; otherwise the 

 purchaser shall be obliged to keep the lot with all faults" (Revised cata- 

 logue, March 16th, 1896). 



In the case of Head v. Tattersall (L.R. 7, Ex. 7, 1871), where the 

 above condition was discussed, two important points were decided. There, 

 before the horse was removed, the buyer was told by the groom in charge 

 of such horse that the warranty given with it was wrong, and it was con- 

 tended that the buyer in removing the horse after such notice had waived 

 his right under the warranty. The court, however, held that the state- 

 ment of the groom was not equivalent to a notice by the defendants that 

 the warranty was incorrect. The other point argued was whether the fact 

 that the horse received some injury while in the custody of the buyer 

 deprived the latter of his right to return it. On this point Baron Bramwell 

 remarked: "It is quite true as a general proposition that a buyer cannot 

 return a specific chattel except it be in the same state as when it was 

 bought; but in such a case as the present the rule mus^ be qualified thus: 

 the buyer must return the horse in the same condition as when he bought 

 it, but subject to any of those incidents to which the horse might be 

 liable, either from its inherent nature or from the course of the exercise 

 by the buyer of those rights over it which the contract gave. For 

 example, suppose the horse when standing in the stable strained itself 

 or injured a limb, that would not affect the right of return, although the 

 horse would no longer be in exactly the same condition as before." 



