198 



PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES. 



Reselling 

 with a war- 

 ranty. 



Damages for 

 misrepresenta- 

 tion. 



houglit the horse at so much, and resold him at so much, 

 without alleging the cause of the advance, or averring 

 that he had laid out any money on the horse in the mean- 

 time. And it was held, in that case, that although the 

 contract of sale at a profit had been actually completed 

 before the unsoundness was discovered, yet the plaintiff 

 could not recover as special damage the advance in value, 

 which, as stated in the declaration, was the mere loss of a 

 good bargain {q). 



If the buyer of a horse with a warranty, relying thereon, 

 resells him with a warranty, and being sued thereon by his 

 vendee, offers the defence to the vendor, who gives no 

 directions as to the action, the plaintiff defending that 

 action is entitled to recover the costs of it from his vendor 

 as part of the damage occasioned by his breach of 

 warranty (r). He may also recover not only a sum fairly 

 and reasonably paid to the second vendee as compensation (s), 

 but also a sum in respect of damages, which he has agreed 

 to make good, although no amount has been fixed, nor any 

 sum actually paid, the mere liability to pay such costs 

 being sufficient to sustain the claim for special damage (/). 

 But he cannot recover any such costs if, by a reasonable 

 examination, he could have discovered the breach of 

 warranty before sale (ti). 



Where there is a misrepresentation of the character or 

 condition of goods, the vendor is responsible for all injury 

 which is the direct and natural result of the purchaser's 

 acting on the faith of his representation. Therefore, where 

 a cattle dealer fraudulently represented a cow to be free 

 from infectious disease when he knew that it was not so, 

 and f;he purchaser placed it with five others which caught 

 the disease and died, the latter was held entitled to recover 

 as damages, in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, 

 the value of all the cows [x). And the same rule would be 

 appHed where there was no fraud, but the beast was war- 

 ranted free from disease, and both parties contemplated its 

 being placed with other stock (y). 



(u) Wrightup v. Chamherlain, 7 

 Scott, 598. 



(x) Mullet V. Mason, L. R., 1 C. 

 P. 659 ; 35 L. J., C. P. 299 ; Mayne 

 on Damages, 4th ed. 197; ShcrrodY. 

 Zmgdon, 21 Iowa, 518. 



(y) Smith v. Green, 1 C. P. D. 

 92 ; 45 L. J., C. P. 28. And see 

 Bradley v. Lea, 14 Allen, 20. 



(?) Clare v. Maynard, 6 A. & E. 

 524. 



()•) Lewis v. FeaTce, 7 Taunt. 

 153; 2 Marsh. 43; 17 R. R. 475; 

 and see Molph v. Crouch, L. E., 3 

 Ex. 44; 37 L. J., Ex. 8. 



(s) Dingle t. Sare, 7 C. B.,N. S. 

 145. 



(t) Randall v. Roper, 27 L. J., 

 Q. B. 266. 



