ceal them. 



FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 151 



vessel may have (b). But vrhere a vessel which was 

 described as " teak-built " was sold, " to be taken with all 

 faults," " with any allowance for any defect or error what- 

 soever," and it turned out that she was not " teak-built," 

 it was held that this was a misdescription of the vessel, 

 which came within the term " error," and that the vendor 

 was not liable as for a breach of warranty (c). 



At one time Lord Kenyon held that a seller was bound 

 to disclose to the buyer all latent defects known to him, 

 and that buying " ivith all faults " without a warranty 

 must be understood to relate only to those faults which the 

 buyer could have discovered, or with which the seller was 

 unacquainted {d). 



However, Lord Ellenborough overruled this decision, Or fraud is 

 and said, " I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of that case, ^sed to con- 

 although I feel the greatest respect for the judge by whom 

 it was decided. Where an article is sold ' with all faults' 

 I think it is quite immaterial how many belonged to 

 it within the knowledge of the seller, unless he used 

 some artifice to disguise them, and to prevent their being 

 discovered by the purchaser. The very object of intro- 

 ducing such stipulations is to put the purchaser on his 

 guard, and to throw upon him the burden of examining 

 all faults, both secret and apparent. I may be possessed 

 of a horse I know to have many faults, and I wish to get 

 rid of him for whatever sum he will fetch. I desire my 

 servant to dispose of him, and instead of giving a war- 

 ranty of soundness, to sell him ' with all faults' Having 

 thus laboriously freed myself from responsibility, am I 

 to be liable, if it be afterwards discovered that the horse 

 was unsound ? Why did not the purchaser examine 

 him in the market, when exposed to sale ? By acceding 

 to buy the horse ' with all faults,' he takes upon himself 

 the risk of latent or secret faults, and calculates accord- 

 ingly the price which he gives. It would be most in- 

 convenient and unjust, if men could not, by using the 

 strongest terms which language affords, obviate disputes 

 concerning the quality of the goods which they sell. In 

 a contract such as this, I think there is no fraud, unless 

 the seller by positive means renders ' it impossible for the 

 purchaser to detect latent faults ' " (e). 



(J) Shepherd y. Kain, 5 B. & Aid. [d) MeUish v. Jfo«c««, Peak. Gas. 



240. 115. 



(c) Taylor v. Bullen, 5 Ex. 779. (e) BagUhole v. Walters, 3 Camp. 



156. 



