SALE OF CALCUTTA LINSEED. 485 



sample, if the buyer does not on the day it is sold examine the hulk a?id 

 reject it, he cannot afterwards reject it, or refuse to pay the ivhote price, was 

 held by Rolfe B. to be a reasonable one {Sanders v. Jameson). And 

 semlle that an article sold by sample cannot in any case be rejected as 

 not corresponding with the sample, except within a reasonable time {il.). 

 The delivery of a sa7nple, if considered to he part of a thing sold, was ruled 

 by the Court of King's Bench, on the authority of Randeau v. Wtjcdt, 

 to be a sufficient acceptance ; but otherwise where it is a sample merely, 

 and forms no part of the bulk (Coojjer v. Elston). And so it was held 

 by Gihhs C.J. in the case of a sample of trefoil {Talver v. West). 



In the case of Grimoldby v. Wells, plaintiff sold by sample to defend- 

 ant four quarters of tares, which were placed in defendant's barn by his 

 servant. When the defendant saw them, he said they were not as good 

 as sample, and wrote to the plaintiff" to that efi"ect, and that he would not 

 have them. It Avas found, as a fact, that the tares were not as good as 

 sample. Held that the defendant had a right to reject them, and was- 

 not bound to send them back, or place them in neutral custody {Couston 

 V. Chapman, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 250 ; cited Lucy v. Moujtet, 29 L. J. 

 Ex. 110). 



Wider v. Schilizzi is an authority that upon a sale (not hy sample, and 

 tvithout warranty) of merchandise, ivhich the huyer has no opportunity of 

 inspecting, it is an implied condition that the article shall fairly and reason- 

 ably answer the description in the contract. Here the plaintiff agreed to 

 buy of the defendant a cargo of " Calcutta linseed tale cpiale,'' but on its 

 arrival he objected to its quality, complaining that it had such a large 

 admixture of other seeds as not to be " Calcutta linseed." It was jiroved 

 that no seed conies to market without some admixture, the average 

 generally being two or tliree per cent., but according to the plaintiff's 

 witnesses the linseed in question had fifteen per cent, of tares, rape, and 

 mustard, and was not linseed at all within the meaning of the contract. 

 The defendant's witnesses said it was inferior, but still answered the 

 description in the contract, and that the plaintiff had sold it as and for 

 " linseed " to crushers, who had sold it made up as " linseed-cake." 

 Jervis C.J. put it to the jury to say whether the article delivered reason- 

 ably answered the description of Calcutta linseed, that is, linseed with a 

 reasonable amount of adulteration only. A verdict was found for the 

 plaintiff, and the Court of Common Pleas refused to disturb it. WiXles 

 J. said, " The jury have in substance found that the linseed in question 

 was so mixed with seeds of a different and inferior description, as to 

 have lost its distinctive character, and prevent its passing in the market 

 by the commercial name of ' Calcutta linseed.' The purchaser had a 

 right to expect not a perfect article, but an article which would be sale- 



