IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Franklin Times, Volume 10, Issue 836, 25 May 1923, Page 4

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

(To. the Editor)

Sir,—ln your issue of the 22nd inst appears a letter under the heading “Unfortunate Breeder v. Unfortunate Buyer.” What a suitable application for the dual classes. Without the former the latter would be now existant. Yet the writer appeals for something something akin to legislation on behalf of the buyers of pedigree stock for their special benefit and protection as against the seller. Mr Heerdigen evidently missed the points. The question calling for an answer is : Is the law now in sight on the question of po tency necessary, as between buyer and seller in face of all the preamble in the existing law, anid if not, let all agree that the present judgment should not find a place on the Statute Book, as a contention for or a concentration of various authorities quoted in the judgment. The point originally raised is not so much the right or the wrong between individuals. i But the fact that science has not. yet supplied the information wanting. Hence the seller and the buyer are equally on the same, plane. As stated before I do not wish to introduce a review of the judgment, leaving that to the Court of Appeal I am more in favour of advocating the law of equity in such instead of straining the point for the sake of law. Anyone who knows the national unselfishness continually confronting the pedigree breeder mast recognise that he is hampered and restrained on account of personal obligations and reponsibilities. His re putation as a breeder depends upon his integrity and must divulge the truth so far asi he is acquainted with it, and before a foolish guarantee;. would destroy an animal rather than loose his reputation. On the buyers’ side it may be contended with equally good results. Having once secured an animal according to an equitable agreement between two parties there would appear to be quite enough of law in existence already to satisfy, honesty, justice and fair dealing. It is a pity “Breeder” did not sign his name; he has evi dently recognised the point of my contention and has no doubt experienced some of the ins and outs, ups and downs and disappointments attending pedigree animals,.- whether they are for breeding, show, caring or any other use. That matters should interest the buyer mostly who finds solace in his own judgment and experience. The text will right itself.' )fhe law as it stands has sufficed for hundreds of and one farmer states only one case of impotancy has come to his knowledge for ten years. So if the buyer anti seller could arrange to suspend heavy expense by mutual agreement and join in having the case revised it might be a means of saving future litigation. lam satisfied that Mr Heerdigen will realise the point at issue and give his support in the direction indicated in my last or some such method. —I am, .etc.. A. PARK HORNE. Buckland, May 23, 1923.