OF PURCHASE AND SALE, ETC. 



75 



u rulo l)f'iii^ moved for a now trial, Chief Baron 

 I'ollock drew a distinction between a patent def«'<t 

 such as a splint and such a patent defect as blind- 

 ness, following in effect, and quoting the unfor- 

 tunate case of Mav(jctson \.lFri;//i(, before referred 

 to. But Baron Bramwell, in following the Chief 

 Baron, gave his decision on other and much wider 

 grounds, namely, that where, as in this case, a 

 written warranty is given, it cannot be modified 

 by any parol evidence that defects existed at the 

 time in contravention of such warranty. He said : 

 " I think the warranty, being a written document, 

 cannot be altered by parol. AVlien the wan-anty 

 is by parol, I can understand it can be limited by 

 circumstances occuning at the time it was made, 

 although in form it may be general. This does 

 not apply to a written warranty." 



It will be remarked that these words of the Written 



•II- J.1 warranty 



learned baron arc not precisely bearmg on tne cannot be 

 point before the Court ; they are, in fact, obifer ^^^^yoi ^ 

 dicta on another point, namely, the question of 

 admitting parol evidence to vary or enlarge a 

 written warranty, and, therefore, as such cannot 

 be quoted as precedent law. Still, it is not im- 

 probable, for reasons given below, that this limited 

 view of a written warranty may hereafter prevail, 

 and, therefore, every horse dealer or seller should 

 be very cautious when selling a horse with patent 

 or known defects in giving any warranty at all, 

 unless the buyer will accept one with a memo- 



