HORSE WARIIANTY, 1/ 



1 quito af^roo tliat lliore is a difForonco between a 

 waiTanty and a roprcseutation, because a repre- 

 sentation must bo known to bo wrong. The plain- 

 tilf in his letter says 'you remember you repre- 

 sented the horse to be five years old,' to which the 

 defendant answers ' the horso is as I represented 

 it.'" The jury found for the plaintiff, saying 

 there was a warranty. 



In IFophina v. I'd no uc rail (d), a good illustration Distinction 



•, i -, <. ^ ■,- • /• ? i Letwceu 



may bo loimd oi the distmction between a mere repre- 

 represcntation to induce a would-be purchaser to and war- 

 buy, and statements which form part of the con- ranty. 

 tract, and are therefore w^arranties. There the 

 plaintiff bought a horse, sold by auction at Tat- 

 tersall's, and it was admitted that, at the time of 

 the sale, no warranty was given. But it appeared 

 that the day before the sale, while the plaintiff was 

 examining the horse, the defendant came into the 

 stable, and as they were acquainted, said to the 

 plaintiff, " You have nothing to look for, I assure 

 you he is perfectly sound in every respect," to 

 which the plaintitf replied, " If you say so I am 

 satisfied," and left off examining the horse. Tho 

 horse turned out unsound, and the plaintiff brought 

 his action on the supposed warranty. It was ad- 

 mitted that there was no fraud in the statement 

 by the defendant. The judges unanimously ruled 

 that there was no warranty, and that the antecedent 

 representation formed no part of the contract. 



i'l) loC.B. 130; •23L.J.,C. r. 1G2. 



