Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
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.
Answer
Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81 (HL)

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
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.
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
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.
Answer
Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81 (HL)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 wa

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.