271 



Percival v. Blake, 2 Carr. and P. 514.~"If a 

 person purchases an article, and suffers it to remain 

 on his premises for two months, without examina- 

 tion, and then finds it to be unfit for use, he can- 

 not after that length of time, avail himself of the 

 objection in answer to an action for the price, 

 unless some deceit has been practised with regard 

 to the article." 



In this case, a letter promising payment was 

 written by the defendant two months after the 

 delivery of the goods ; and Chief Justice Abbott 

 thoiightthat his objection came too late, two months 

 being more than a reasonable time to discover the 

 defect, unless deceit had been practised. The 

 jury, however, thought otherwise, and found for 

 the defendant; at the same time they acquitted 

 the plaintiff of wilful misrepresentation. 



A very recent case, however, has been decided 

 which is of far more consequence to all purchasers 

 under fraudulent representation, and if it is to be 

 considered law, it is of the last importance ; it is 

 the case of Campbell v. Fleming, 1 Adolphus and 

 Elhs, 40, where it is held, "that if a party be 

 induced to purchase an article by fraudulent mis- 

 representation of the seller respecting it, and after 

 discovering the fraud continue to deal with the 

 article as his own, he cannot recover back the 



