CORRESPONDENCE
| Date | 01 January 1957 |
| Published date | 01 January 1957 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00427.x |
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
The
Modem
Law
Review.
Sir, November
27,
1956,
Apropos of L.C.B.G.'s note on the implied warranty for fitness
at
pp.
544-
595
of
your issue of September,
1956,
it
might be of interest to recall
a
case
brought before Governor Sancho Panza. A tailor was arraigned for making
five caps out of
a
valuable material supplied by the customer, caps large
enough for being put on the fingers of the hand, but not large enough for
wearing on the head. The defence was that the tailor had made caps
to
order, and that there was no warranty on his part that these could cover
the head. The customer had, after inquiry from the draper, purchased cloth
to the measure of one cap for
his
head, but thought that the tailor would
perhaps cheat him out of part of the cloth.
So
he asked if two caps could
not be made out of the same material. The
tailor
replied that this could
be done. The customer went away, but his suspicion of the tailor
or
perhaps
his own avarice got the better of him.
He
returned and inquired if three
caps could possibly be made. The tailor again answered in the affirmative.
The customer left the shop, but soon enough returned to ask for four caps
to be made. Again the tailor agreed; and this was repeated for the fifth
time. The tailor was held not to blame.
Is
not this the parental case for the suits of the nature commented upon?
Did Cervantes foresee all of them hundreds of years ago? Are not the
human problems very human after all?
Yours truly,
C.
M.
SKAFQAT,
Senior Civil Judge.
Sheikhupura (Pakistan).
To continue reading
Request your trial