PURCHASE OF A BULL

Te Aroha News, Volume XLI, Issue 6440, 19 January 1924, Page 8

PURCHASE OF A BULL

FERTILITY IN QUESTION

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION UPSET

A written decision given by Mr Justice Reed was delivered in the Supreme Court, Auckland, on Saturday, in an appeal from the decision of Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., in the Pulcekohe Magistrate’s Court. The appellant was Henry Dell (Mr Haddow and Mr Goulding), and the respondent was Thomas Quilty (Mr Leary). The dispute was in regard to a bull, known as Harbour Light. The Magistrate found that the bull which had been bought by Mr Quilty at a sale held under the auspices of the Auckland Breeders’ Association as a pedigree Jersey bull, was not as described. He found that what the parties intended should pass at the sale was a potent bull, and the animal having proved to be sterile, producing no progeny during a period of two years, the buyer was entitled to recover damages. His Honour said the vital question for decision in the case was as to whether, as a matter of law, a farmer who sold at public an untried bull under the description of a pedigree bull, without giving any warranty whatsoever, and, indeed, negativing any warranty, was liable in damages should the bull subsequently be found to be sterile. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellant purported to sell to him a pedigree bull, and that constituted a sale by description_ connoting all the essential qualities of a; bull. The appellant had submitted that it was not a sale by description, but the sale of specific goods. What was the . description under which the animal was sold. The animal answered to the description under which it was sold, unless the term “a pedigree Jersey bull,” incorporated, by implication, as part of the description, that the seed of the bull was sterile.

The position in the present case was that the vendor had specifically declined to warrant anything, and there was no implied condition as to the state or condition of the - animal or its fitness fpr any particular purpose or that it was of mercantil quality. In vi|w of that position,. how could it be held that the circumstances surrounding' the transaction necessarily implied that it was within the contemplation of the' parties that liability should attach to the vendor if the bull proved sterile? He was satisfied that no such inference was justified. “I think, therefore,” concluded His Honour, “first, that it was not in the contemplation of the parties that any liability should attach to the appellant if the bull proved sterile; and second, that the bull answered to its description as a pedigree Jersey bull, and, as any possible implied warranty was negatived, the respondent is without remedy. The appeal will be allowed with costs. £l2/12/-, and disbursements'.”