Gardiner v Gray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1815 |
| Date | 06 March 1815 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 46
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Applied, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bing. 533; Powell v. Horton, 1836, 2 Bing, N. C. 668; Shepherd v. Pybus, 1842, 3 Man. & G. 868. Jones v. Just, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 197. Explained and applied, Randall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 102. Considered, McMullan v Helberg, 1879, 4 L R I. 94, Wallis v Russell, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 585, Niblett v Confectioners Materials Co, [1921] 3 K B 387. Distinguished, Mody v Gregson, 1868, L R. 4 Ex 49. Referred to, Kain v Old, 1824, 2 B. & C. 627, Allan v Lake, 1852, 18 Q B 560, Bristol Tramway & Carriage Co v Fiat Motors Ltd, [1910] 2 K B 831: Summer, Permam & Co. v. Webb & Co, [1922] 1 K. B. 55
[144] Monday, March 6, 1815 gardiner v. gray. ^Where before or at the time of sale a specimen of the goods is exhibited to the buyer, if there be a written contract which merely describes the goods as of a particular denomination,- this is not a sale by sample ; but there is an implied warranty that they shall be of a merchantable quality of the denomination mentioned in the contract ) f Applied, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bing. 533; Powell v. Horton, 1836, 2 Bing. N. C. 668 ; Shepherd v. Pybus, 1842, 3 Man. & G. 868 , Jones v. Just, 1868, L. R. (a) Ross v. Thwa-ite, Park, 25; Backhouse v. Ripley, ib. 4 CAMP. 145. RAITT V. MITCHELL 47 3 Q. B. 197. Explained and applied, Randall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q B. D 102. Considered, McAIullan v Helberg, 1879, 4 L R I. 94 , Walhs v Russell, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 585-, tfifekft v Confectioners Materials Co, [1921J 3 K B 387. Distinguished, M.ody v Gret/sun, 1868, L R. 4 Ex 49 Referred to, Kain v Old, 1824, 2 B. & C. 627 , Allan v Lake, L852, 18 Q B 560, Bttstol Tiamway & Carriage Co v Fiat Motors Ltd , [1910] 2KB 831; Sutnner, Pennant & Co v Webb & Co , [1922] 1 K. B. 55 ] The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendant undertook that 12 bags of waste sdk, purchased of him by the plaintiff, should be equal to a sample produced at the time of the sale. Other counts stated the defendant's promise to be, that the silk should be waste silk of a good and merchantable quality The silk in question was imported from the continent, and before it was landed, samples of it, which the defendant had received in a letter, were shewn to the plaintiff's agent. The bargain was then made, and the sale note was written, which merely mentioned that 12 bags of waste silk were sold at l()s 6d. per Ib. without referring to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cehave N.v v Bremer Handelgesellschaft m.b.H. (Hansa Nord)
...of that kind re commonly bought. If a buyer buys "waste silk" and it is of no use for the purpose of "waste silk", he can reject it, see Gardiner v. Gray (1815) 4 Camp. 144: If he buys dates for food and they arc of no use for food, he can reject them, see Asfar & Co. v. Blundell (1896) 1 Q......
-
Henry Kendall & Sons (A Firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd and Others
...increased in what are now called ' unascertained or future goods ' and more generally 'goods sold by description'. As early as 1815 in Gardiner v. Gray 4 Camp. 144 Lord Ellenborough stated the rule. Goods had been sold as waste silk: a breach was held to have been committed on the ground th......
-
Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
...of "caveat emptor" (which still applies fundamentally to sale of real estate) was recognised as long ago as 1815 by Lord Ellenborough in Gardiner v. Gray 4 Camp. 144. He stated the principle that where there was a sale by description the purchaser has a right to expect a saleable article a......
-
Aswan Engineering Establishment Company (M/S) v Lupdine Ltd
...14 (2) must fail. 15The starting point of the development of the modern law as to merchantable quality is often taken to be the case of Gardiner v. Gray 4 Campbell 144, where Lord Ellenborough 16"He cannot without a warranty insist that it shall be of any particular quality or fitness, but ......
-
Table of Cases
....139 Garaj v. De Bernardo (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4th) 661 (Ont. C.A.) .......................... 431 Gardiner v. Gray (1815), 171 E.R. 46; 4 Camp. 144 ................................................ 12 Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 181, [2000] O.J. No. 3804 (S.C.J.) ................
-
Causes of Action in Product Liability
...that a seller of goods provides a warranty as to their fitness without making an express representation has been codified in Canada 1 (1815), 171 E.R. 46 [emphasis added]. Causes of Action in Product Liability 13 through English and later Canadian (provincial) legislation such as the Sale o......