ON WARRANTY. 37 



was necessary to the action to give notice of the unsound- 

 ness in a reasonable time. Tho cause of action is certainly 

 complete on breach of the warranty. 



It used to be supposed that the buyer had no right to 

 have the horse medically treated, and that he would waive 

 the warranty by doing so. The question, however, would 

 be, has he injured or diminished the value of the horse by 

 the treatment ? It will generally be prudent for him to 

 refrain from all medical treatment, because the means 

 adopted, however skillfully employed, may have an unfor- 

 tunate effect, or may be misrepresented by ignorant or in- 

 terested observers. 



The purchaser, possibly, may like the horse, notwith- 

 standing his discovered defect ; and he may retain, and 

 bring an action for the depreciation in value on account of 

 the unsoundness. Few, however, will do this, because his 

 retaining the horse will cause a suspicion that the defect 

 was of no great consequence, and will give rise to much 

 cavil about the amount of damages : and, after all, very 

 slight damages will probably be obtained. 



" I take it to be clear law,' 7 says Lord Eldon, " that if a 

 person purchases a horse that is warranted, and it after- 

 wards turns out that the horse was unsound at the time of 

 warranty, the buyer may, if he pleases, keep the horse, 

 and bring an action on the warranty, in which he will 

 have the right to recover the difference between the value 

 of a sound horse, and one with such defects as existed at 

 the time of warranty j or he may return the horse, and bring 

 an action to recover the full money ; but in the latter case, 

 the seller has a right to expect that the horse shall be re- 

 turned to him in the same state he was when sold, and not 

 by any means diminished in value ; for if a person keep 

 a warranted article for any length of time after discovering 



