338 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
ORCHIDS IN THE LAW COURTS. 
THE case, at the Manchester County Court, of Ashworth v. Wells, for 
alleged breach of warranty in connection with the so-called Cattleya 
Aclandiz alba, was reported at pages 251 and 260. Judge Perry has now 
given his decision in the matter. His Honour, in giving judgment, said the 
facts of the case were these :—In June, the plaintiff sold to the defendant 
an Orchid undeveloped, but warranted by name to the plaintiff as Cattleya 
Aclandiz alba. The Orchid was sold at an open auction, at which many 
Orchid growers were present, and fetched £21. Ultimately the Orchid 
developed into a common purple Cattleya, value 7s. 6d. No one had ever 
grown or seen a Cattleya Aclandie alba, but Orchld growers were of 
opinion that such a plant, would, if it existed, be worth at least £50, and 
would probably fetch a much larger sum. The only question in dispute 
now was what was the measure of damages consequent on the breach of 
warranty, that the Orchid was “alba.” The defendant was ready to repay 
the money he received for the Orchid, but the plaintiff claimed a sum equal 
to the price he might have obtained for such an Orchid if it had proved 
to be “alba.” His Honour, having quoted the authorities on the 
case, said that he could find no case in which the failure to make a 
probable profit had been even claimed, much less allowed, as damages for 
breach of warranty, and inferentially the case of Randall v. Roper showed 
that such a claim would not be allowed. It seemed to him that it should 
be shown that some actual loss had been sustained, and that it was not 
enough that there should be some possible loss. If the plaintiff found out 
at once that the plant sold was not as warranted, he could have his money 
returned. If he reasonably expended money in the development of the 
plant, that money ought also to be returned. If he re-sold the plant with 
the same warranty, and had to settle a claim against him, that also might 
be included in his damages. But the failure to make an anticipated profit 
—in this case a highly speculative profit—could not in any opinion be 
included in the damages naturally consequent on the defendant’s breach of 
warranty. He was further convinced that such anticipated profits could 
not be recovered as damages for breach ot warranty by the judgment in the 
case of Paterson v. Ayre, which was one of the cases eonndared in Randall 
v. Roper. Under these circumstances he thought the defendant had. paid 
sufficient money into court, and was therefore entitled 
costs. The plaintiff had leave to take the mone 
to defendant of his taxed costs. 
ie shall tine ar arg ee 
c esting case argued before the Divisional Court. 
to judgment with 
y out of court on payment 
