Gray and Another against Cox and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 999
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. c. 6 D. & R. 200; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 184. discussed, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bing, 545; Brown v. Edgington, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 291. Not applied, Chalmers v. Harding, 1868, 17 L. T. 574. Discussed v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 106.
[108] geay and another against Cox and others. 1825. Where the plaintiff in assumpsit alleged that in consideration that he would buy a quantity of sheathing copper of the defendant at a certain price, defendant undertook that it should be good, sound, substantial, and serviceable copper: Held, that this warranty was not proved by shewing a purchase of copper sheathing at the ordinary market price, no express warranty having been given.. Qusere, whether such evidence would have been sufficient to prove an allegation, that the defendants promised that the article sold should be reasonably fit for sheathing copper. [S. C. 6 D. & R. 200; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 184. Discussed, Jones v. Bright, 1829, 5 Bing. 545; Brown v. Edgington, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 291. Not applied, Chalmers v. Harding, 1868, 17 L. T. 574. Discussed, Eandall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 106.] Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated, that, in consideration that the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendants, had agreed to purchase of the defendants a quantity of goods and merchandize, to wit, 300 plates of copper sheathing, of a certain weight per foot, to wit, &c., at and for a certain price agreed upon between them, to wit, &c., the defendants undertook to furnish the plaintiffs with such goods and merchandize as aforesaid, of a good, sound, substantial, and serviceable quality. Averment, that the plaintiffs, relying upon that undertaking, did buy the copper at the price aforesaid, but that the defendants did not furnish such goods as aforesaid of a good, sound, substantial, or serviceable quality, but on the contrary did, instead thereof, supply the plaintiffs with certain plates of copper sheathing, of a very bad, ilnsound, and worthless quality, by means whereof the plaintiffs having affixed and fastened the said copper plates to a certain ship or vessel of them (plaintiffs) were forced to lay out a large sum of money in taking them off again and procuring other sheathing-plates, and affixing them to the said ship. The second count varied in some immaterial respects from the first, but had a warranty in the same words as before. There were several other counts, without any material variation in the statement of the warranty. Plea, general-issue. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the London sittings after Hilary term 1824, it was proved by a bill of parcels and receipt 1000 GRAY V. COX 4B.&C.109. [109] given by the defendants, that in May 1821 they had furnished to the plaintiffs for the ship "Coventry" a quantity of what they called "sheathing copper," and the price charged was the market price of the day for that article. No express warranty was proved; the vessel was coppered by shipwrights employed by the plaintiffs. The vessel made one voyage to Demerara, and returned in January 1822, when great part of the copper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Burges Camac, Knight, v Warriner
...Shepherd v. Pybws (3 Mann. & Gr. 868, 4 Scott, N. E. 434); Oliphanf v. Bayley (1 D. & Meriv. 373). [Cresswell, J., cited Gray v. Cm (4 B. & C. 108, 6 D. &.E. 200, 1 C. & P. 184).] Byles, Serjt. (with whom was Barlow), in Michaelmas term last shewed cause. The exhibition of the prospectus to......
-
Budd v Fairmaner
...a warranty, and that the vendor was liable as for a breach of it, notwithstanding the words " with all faults," &c. (a)3 6 D. & E. 200; 4 B. & C. 108 ,"and 1 C. & P. 184. " If an article is sold for a particular purpose, a ad at the usual market price, and it turns out to be defective, an a......
-
Burnby v Bollett
...and if they be not, the same remedy (viz. by action on the case to exact damages for the deceit) lies against him." Gray v. Oox (4 B. & C. 108) shews that the seller of an article undertakes that it shall be reasonably fit for the use for which it is intended. [Parke, B. That is confined to......