The plaintiff purchased the defendant's horse at auction. One day prior to the auction the defendant, finding the plaintiff examining the horse's legs, declared, 'You need not examine his legs: you have nothing to look for. I assure you that he is perfectly sound in every respect.' In these circumstances, the Court of Common Pleas held that the defendant's statement was not a term but a mere representation. It is usually argued that the distinction between the two cases rests on the evidence given by the defendant in the latter case that horses sold at auction were never warranted unless this was expressly stated in the catalogue.
Answer
Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854) 15 CB 130
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
The plaintiff purchased the defendant's horse at auction. One day prior to the auction the defendant, finding the plaintiff examining the horse's legs, declared, 'You need not examine his legs: you have nothing to look for. I assure you that he is perfectly sound in every respect.' In these circumstances, the Court of Common Pleas held that the defendant's statement was not a term but a mere representation. It is usually argued that the distinction between the two cases rests on the evidence given by the defendant in the latter case that horses sold at auction were never warranted unless this was expressly stated in the catalogue.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
The plaintiff purchased the defendant's horse at auction. One day prior to the auction the defendant, finding the plaintiff examining the horse's legs, declared, 'You need not examine his legs: you have nothing to look for. I assure you that he is perfectly sound in every respect.' In these circumstances, the Court of Common Pleas held that the defendant's statement was not a term but a mere representation. It is usually argued that the distinction between the two cases rests on the evidence given by the defendant in the latter case that horses sold at auction were never warranted unless this was expressly stated in the catalogue.
Answer
Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854) 15 CB 130
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Hopkins v Tanqueray (1854) 15 CB 130. In Hopkins, the plaintiff purchased the defendant's horse at auction. One day prior to the auction the defendant, finding the plaintiff examining the horse's legs, declared, 'You need
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.