Fisher v Samuda and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1808 |
| Date | 18 February 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 925
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Distinguished, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bing. 533; Davis v. Hedges, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 687. Referred to, Randall v. Newson, 1877, Q. B. D. 102; A.-G. v. Horner (No. 2), [1913] 1 Ch 140.
Thursday, Feb. 18, 1808. fishes v. samuda and another that where an action has been brought for the value of goods furnished at a stipulated price, and the purchaser does not, either in bar of the action, or to reduee the damages, object to the quality of the goods, but allows the seller to recover a verdict for the full price agreed upon, he cannot afterwards maintain a craw-action on the ground of the goods being of a bad quality and unfit for the purpose for which they were ordered. As soon as the purchaser of goods discovers that they do not answer the order given for them, he ought to return them to the vendor, or send him notice to take them back; and if he does neither, he cannot afterwards maintain an action on the ground of the article being quite unfit for the purposes for which he ordered it.) [Distinguished, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bmg. 533 ; Davis v. Hedges, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 687. Referred to, Randall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 102 ; A.-G. v. Horner (No. 2 , [1913] 1 Ch 140.] The declaration stated, that in consideration that the plaintiff had undertaken to buy of the defendants a certain quantity of beer, to be shipped for Gibraltar, they undertook to furnish and deliver to him good and sufficient beer for that purpose. Breach, that the beer furnished and delivered was bad, and wholly unfit to be shipped far Gibraltar ; whereby the plaintiff not only lost the profit and advantage which he would have derived from the purchase of the said beer, but sustained great loss and damage on occasion of his not being able to sell and dispose of the same at Gibraltar aforesaid. There were other counts stating generally, that the beer was to be consigned beyond the seas ; and on a warranty, that at the time of the sale it was sound and good beer. [191} Park, in opening the plaintiff's case, observed, that an action had been before bromght by the defendants against the plaintiff for the price of the beer in question, in which judgment had been allowed to go by default, and that on the execution of the writ of enquiry there was a verdict for the full price agreed upon. He admitted (although there were authorities to the contrary (a) which might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Bright and Others
...manufactured goods, however low the price, it is an implied term that the goads should be merchantable. And though in Fisher v. Samuda (1 Campb. 190) it was held, a party could not maintain ati action on the ground of the goods being of a bad quality, and unfit for the purpose for which the......
-
Poulton against Lattimore
...set up the inferiority of it to the specimen, because he should have returned it, and so have rescinded the contract. In Fisher v. Samuda (1 Campb. 190), it was held, that as soon as the purchaser of goods discovers that they do not answer the order given for them, he ought to K. B. xxxviii......
-
Gray and Another against Cox and Others
...been much relaxed in favor of the party deceived, particularly since the action of assumpsit has been in common use. In Fisher v. Samuda (1 Campb. 190), Lord Ellenborough expressed an opinion that a purchaser might call upon a seller to take back his goods, if they were unfit for the purpos......
-
Francis against Baker
...be a great injustice to put the defendant to the circuitous remedy of an action of trover under such circumstances. Fisher v. Samuda (1 Camp. 190), is, in principle, in favour of the plea. In Cole v. Le Souef (d), in an action [645] for money paid, the Court of C. P. inclined to the opinion......