FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 149 



But to render a person liable to an action for false and A well- 

 fraudulent representations, it is not enough to show that g'^^^^'^'^'^ 

 the representations are false. If he acted upon a fair and 

 reasonably ■well-grounded belief that they were true, he is 

 not responsible for them, however unfounded they may 

 turn out to be (s). 



It has been held that even the mere knowledge that the Delusion 

 other party is labouring under a delusion which materially ^'^^*"'S tlie 

 affects the contract, when the vendor suffers him to be 

 operated upon by that delusion, makes the contract void {t). 



The seller, however, is undoubtedly liable, where he Eepresenta- 

 makes such misrepresentation as induces the buyer to for- *^°° *" I""?". 

 bear making those inquiries, which for his own security ^™ mquinea. 

 and advantage he would otherwise have made (?(). 



Where a representation is made and a fraud practised Eepresenta- 

 through the medium of a third party, and damage has re- tion tlnough a 

 suited, the vendor is liable to an action ; and this was so ^ ^^^ ^' 

 held by the Court of Common Pleas upon the following 

 facts : — It appeared that the defendant, who was about to 

 sell a public-house, falsely represented to B., who had 

 agreed to purchase it, that the receipts were worth 180^. a 

 month ; and B., to the knowledge of the defendant, had 

 communicated the representation to the plaintiff, who in 

 consequence became the purchaser of it, and afterwards 

 found that the receipts had not been worth so much (v) . 



Where a third party makes a fraudulent representation Eepresenta- 

 with regard to an article about to be sold, he is liable to ^Y'J^^^ ^ 

 the purchaser. Thus where the plaintiff was about pur- ^ ^^'^ ^' 

 chasing a horse from a party who warranted him sound, 

 and who, for the corroboration of his statement, referred 

 him to the defendant, who warranted the horse sound in 

 the wind: Mr. Baron Alderson said, "the merits are, 

 whether or not the defendant made a fraudulent representa- 

 tion. It is proved that he did. He comes here to defend 

 himself from the charge of having made a fraudulent repre- 

 sentation on the occasion of the sale." The jury found a 

 verdict for the plaintiff (w). 



Co. V. Smith, L. E., 4 H. L. 64, 69 ; {v) Pilmore v. Sood, 5 Bing. N. C. 



39 L. J., Ch. 849. 97 ; see also Swift v. Winterbottom, 



(s) Shrewsbury v. Shunt, 2 Scott, L. E., 8 Q. B. 244, 253 ; 42 L. J., 



N E 588 Q.B.lll ; SwiftY. Jewsbury,'L.'R., 



{t) Sill V. Gray, 1 Stark. N. P. 9 Q. B. 301 ; 43 L. J., Q. B. 56— 



C 434; 18 E. E. 802. Ex. Ch.; Michardson y. Sylvester, 



'(«) Per Lord EUenborough, C.J., L. E., 9 Q. B. 34 ; 43 L. J., Q. B. 1. 



Vernon Y. Keys, 12 East, 367; 11 (w) Mash v. Densham, 1 M. & 



E. E. 499. Eob. 442. 



