OK ITUCHASK AM) SALE, ETC. I t 



will not bo pemiittoJ, it' siu^l in ;in action for 

 hroaeh of warranty in respect of snch defects or 

 ailments, to set up the defence that the plaintiif 

 knew of the matters he is compLaining of when ho 

 Ijought the horse, and that, therefore, when the 

 seller sold the horse, there could have been no de- 

 ceit or fraud attempted to mislead the buyer, or 

 induce him to buy the animal. Again, it must 

 bo romombercd tliat the rule of law rarrat emptor 

 will not hold good, where the buyer has not had 

 the opportunity of inspecting the goods. This 

 was laid down long ago in the case of horses. 

 Wo find in the Year-book lo lien. 4, p. 1, a judge 

 saying : "If I buy a horse of you in a different 

 place from where the horse is, through the con- 

 fidence I have in you, and you warrant him sound 

 in all his parts when he is blind, I shall have a 

 good action of deceit against you." The principle Purchase 

 was laid down in Gardiner v. Grai/ (//) . There Lord inspection 

 Ellenborough, after laying down " that in a sale SiTty!^' 

 of goods by description, where the buyer has not 

 inspected the goods, there is in addition to the 

 condition precedent that the goods shall answer 

 the description an implied warranty, that they 

 shall be saleable or merchantable. " Where there 

 is no opportunity to inspect the commodity, the 

 maxim careat emptor does not apply." The whole 

 law on the subject was reviewed in the case of 



(h) 4 Camp. 144. 



