Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81 (HL). Here, the plaintiff required a horse for stud purposes. The plaintiff attempted to examine the defendant's horse but was told that he need not look for anything and that the horse was sound in every way. The price was agreed and delivery of the horse took place three weeks later. The horse was not in fact fit for stud purposes and the judge directed the jury to consider two points: first, did the defendant, at the time of the sale, represent that the horse was fit for stud purposes? Second, did the purchaser act on that in purchasing the horse? Both questions were answered in the affirmative and consequently, the statement was deemed to be a term of the contract.