Hanson v. Busse

Citations

• 45 Ill. 496

Syllabus

<p>1. Vendor—of chattels—when not liadle for defeats of. The rule is firmly established, that a vendor of goods, which the purchaser has, at the time of purchase, the opportunity of inspecting, is not responsible for defects of quality, in the absence of fraud and warranty.</p> <p>2. Warranty—what does not constitute a warranty. No particular form of words, or expression is necessary to create a warranty; nor will commendation of the goods, or a representation that they are of a certain quality create a warranty, unless the language of the vendor taken in connection with the circumstances of the sale, fairly implies such intention.</p> <p>3. Former decisions. Towell v. Gatewood, 2 Scam. 22; Adams v. Johnson, 15 Ill. 345; and Kohl v. Linder, 39 id. 195; cited as sustaining this doctrine.</p> <p>4. Vendor—of chattels—when representations dy—will constitute a warranty. Where a person sold to. another, a quantity of apples in barrels, and represented them to he good hand-picked fruit, and of the same quality as previously purchased by the vendee, and shipped by the same party, and exhibited three barrels of them as samples which were good, and a sale was effected,—held, that the fruit proving unmerchantable, the purchaser was not liable for the purchase price; that he had a right to rely upon the samples shown to him, and the representations made concerning them by the vendor, and was under no obligation to open every barrel of the fruit, and make an inspection.</p> <p>5. Same. Where a sale of goods is effected by exhibiting a sample, or when the purchaser has had no opportunity for inspection, in the first instance, the bulk must be as good as the sample, and in the latter it must be as represented. In such cases the maxim caveat emptor has no application.</p>