514 WAERANTY OF SEED BAKLEY. 



as (lie natural and jirobaMc rcpnlt of tlic breach of the original contract, 

 and notwithstanding that none of the claims have been satisfied. This 

 action was for a breach of warranty on the sale of 30 quarters of Che- 

 valier seed barley. The plaintiff, the purchaser, had sold portions of 

 the barley, with the same warranty that he had received from several 

 Bub-purchasers, who had sown the barley, and suljsequently made claims 

 to the plaintiff for the damage they had severally sustained by the bad- 

 ness of the barley. At the trial before the under-sheriff of Esses, the 

 sub-purchasers gave evidence of the loss which they had sustained, and 

 the plaintiff obtained a verdict for £261 7s. Cd., while the damage 

 proved, independently of these witnesses, was £15. A rule to reduce 

 the damages to £15, on the ground that the contingent damages were 

 not the natural and probable result of tlie breach of the original con- 

 tract, and that the })laiutilf had sustained no actual loss on his re-sales, 

 because the proof only amounted to claims against him (the test of cer- 

 tainty in damages being whether they are liquidated or unliquidated, as 

 in this case, and not estimable by a jury), was refused by the Com-t of 

 Queen's Bench. 



Erie J. said : " The question is, what amount of damages the plain- 

 tiffs are entitled to recover ? The defendant sold the barley as Chevalier 

 seed barley, and from such a contract the natural and ordinaiy conse- 

 quence would be that it would be sold as the same, and on being sown, 

 an inferior crop would come up. The natural amount of damages 

 would be the difference between the value of the inferior crop and of 

 that which would have come up if Chevalier seed barley had been sown, 

 which would have been within the decision in Haclley v. Baxendcdc. 

 Then it is said that the sub-purchasers have merely claimed the money 

 from the plaintiffs, but have not brought any action, and that non 

 constat, the claim may ever be enforced. But where a legal liability to 

 pay is incurred by a man, and a claim is made in respect of it, he can 

 recover the amount he is so liable to pay from the person by whose 

 l)reach of contract he has incurred the liability ; and for this purpose 

 there is no difference between a liquidated sum and a sum which is 

 unliquidated, but which he is liable to pay." 



The question in BoUingliam v. Hmd was, U'liellicr in an action for 

 (joods sold and delivered, it is competent to the defendant to show that the 

 plaintiff has entered into contracts of a particular form, for the purpose of 

 convincing the jury that his contract with the plaintiff was in the same 

 form. In this case " rival guano " had been supplied to the defendant, 

 a fanner. The defence was that the guano in question was sold on the 

 condition that if it was not equal in quality to Peruvian guano the 

 defendant was not to pay for it. The price of the " rival guano " was 



