250 



an action, for a breach of warranty, that from the 

 length of time and the inferior price given, it was 

 such an article as the plaintiif intended to purchase." 



The warranty was merely that the sale-note 

 called the article sold by the name of " saffron." 

 Vide also Jones v. Bright, 3 M. and P. 155. 



This case of Prosser v. Hooper, may perhaps 

 have given rise to the erroneous but common 

 opinion hereafter mentioned, that a low price 

 necessarily implies that no warranty is given. 



I shall quote a few more cases which, while they 

 sustain the doctrine of implied warranty, explain the 

 nature of the liability incurred by fraudulent repre- 

 sentation, being the second division of my subject. 



In Hellish v. Motten, Peake Cas. 156, "The 

 seller of a ship is bound to disclose to the buyer 

 all latent defects known to him." 



The ship was purchased with all faults; on 

 taking out her ballast it was discovered that 

 twenty-two of her futtocks were broken. It was 

 contended that the rule of caveat emptor applied. 



Lord Kenyon : " There are certain moral duties 

 which philosophers have called duties of imperfect 

 obligation, such as benevolence to the poor, and 

 many others, which courts of law do not enforce. 

 But in contracts of all kinds it is of the highest 

 importance that caurts of law should compel the 



