243 



opportunity of judging for himself with respect 

 to the sufficiency of the article sold. Thus, in 

 Bluett V. Osborne, 1 Starkie, 384 ; it will be 

 noticed that though fraud formed no part of the 

 case, yet Lord Ellenborough's opinion was deci- 

 dedly expressed, and in the ensuing term, the court 

 refused a rule nisi for a new trial. 



Bluett V. Osborne, 1 Starkie, 384. — " A sells to 

 B a bowsprit, which, at the time of sale, appears 

 to be perfectly sound, but which after being used 

 some time, turns out to be rotten : in the absence 

 of fraud, A is entitled to recover from B, what the 

 bowsprit was apparently worth at the time of 

 delivery." 



Lord Ellenborough : — " A person who sells im- 

 pliedly warrants, that the thing sold shall answer 

 the purpose for which it is sold. In this case, the 

 bowsprit was apparently good, and the plaintiff 

 had an opportunity of inspecting it ; no fraud is 

 complained of, but the bowsprit turned out to be 

 defective on cutting it up : I think the defendant 

 is liable, on account of the subsequent failure. 

 In the case cited, what the plaintiff deserved was 

 the value of the building ; what he deserves here, 

 is the apparent value of the article at the time of 

 delivery." 



It is right, however, to collate this case with a 

 r2 



