Jones v Bright and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1829 |
| Date | 25 May 1829 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1167
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 3 Moo. &. P. 155; 7 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 213. Approved, Chantes v. Hopkins, 1838, 4 Mee. & W. 406. Applied, Brown v. Edgington, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 290. Approved, Turner v. Mucklow, 1862, 6 L. T. 692. See Readhead v. Midand Railway, 1867-69, L. R. 2 Q. B. 419; L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. Adopted, Jones v. Just, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 203. Discussed, Randall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 107. Adopted, Drummond v. Van Ingen, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 290; Jones v. Padgett, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 652; Wallis v. Russell, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 598.
[533] jones v. bright and others. May 25, 1829. [S. C. 3 Moo. & P. 155; 7 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 213. Approved, Chantes v. Hopkins, 1838, 4: Mee. & W. 406. Applied, Brown v. Edgington, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 290. Approved, Turner v. Mucklow, 1862, 6 L. T. 692. See Readhead v. Midland Railway, 1867-69, L. R. 2 Q. B. 419; L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. Adopted, Jones v. Just, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 203. Discussed, Randall v. Newson, 1877, 2 Q. B. I). 107. Adopted, Drummond v. Fan Ingen, 1887, 12 App. Ca?. 290 ; Jones v. Padgett, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 652; WalUs v. Russell, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 598.] The Plaintiff purchased from the warehouse of the Defendant, the manufacturer, copper for sheathing a ship. The Defendant, who knew the object for which the copper was wanted, said, " I will supply you well." - The copper, in consequence of 1168 JONES V. BRIGHT 5 BINO. 534 some intrinsic defect, the cause of which was not proved, having lasted only four months, instead of four years, the average duration of such an article,-Held, in an action on the case in the nature of deceit, that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages. The tenth count of the declaration stated, that the Plaintiff on, &c., at, &c., at the special instance and request of the Defendants, bargained with the Defendants to buy of them, and the Defendants then and there agreed to sell to the Plaintiff divers, to wit 1000, sheets of copper, for the purpose of sheathing the bottom of a certain barque or vessel called the " Isabella"; and the Defendants by then and there falsely and fraudulently warranting the said last-mentioned sheets of copper, which bad been made and manufactured by the Defendants, to be reasonably fit and proper for the purpose last aforesaid, then and there sold the last-mentioned sheets of copper to the Plaintiff at and for a large sum of money, to wit, the sura of 3131. 3s, which was afterwards paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants for the same : whereas, in truth and in fact, the last-mentioned sheets of copper were not, at the said time of the said warranty and sale thereof as aforesaid, reasonably fit or proper for the purpose last aforesaid; but, on the contrary thereof, the said last-mentioned sheets of copper were at that time of ari inferior quality, and wholly unfit and improper for the purpose last aforesaid ; whereby the said last-mentioned sheets of copper, afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., became and were greatly corroded, injured, and destroyed, and of little or no use or value to the plaintiff; and so the Defendants, by means of the said last-mentioned premises, on, &c., at, &c., falsely and fraudulently deceived the Plaintiff on the sale of the said last-mentioned sheets of copper as aforesaid. Then followed an allegation of special damage. [534] The eleventh count differed from the preceding only in omitting the name of the vessel, and the allegation that the copper had been made and manufactured by the Defendants. Aft the trial before Best C. J., London sittings after Michaelmas term, the case proved was as follows:- The Plaintiff was a shipowner; the Defendants manufacturers and vendors of copper for various purposes. Fisher, a mutual acquaintance of the parties, introduced them to each other, saying to the Defendants, "Mr. Jones is in want of copper for sheathing a vessel, and I have pleasure in recommending him to you, knowing you will sell him a good article;" one of the Defendants answered, "Your friend may depend on it, we will supply him well." Copper was lying in the Defendants' warehouse, in sheets of various size, thickness, and weight: the Plaintiffs shipwright selected what he thought fit, and afterwards applied it to the Plaintiff's ship, observing nothing amiss. The invoice described the article sold at " Copper for the ship ' Isabella.'" The Plaintiff paid the market-price as for copper of the best quality; and his ship proceeded on a voyage to Sierra Leone. The copper, however, instead of lasting four or five years, the usual duration of copper employed in sheathing vessels, was, at the end of four or five months, greatly corroded in patches of holes, and unfit for further service. Scientific men, called on the part of the Plaintiff, ascribed the failure to an oversight or casualty in the manufacture, whereby the copper might have imbibed more oxygen than it onght to contain; but all imputation of fraud on the Defendants was disclaimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant's witnesses accounted for the corrosion from the singular inveteracy of the barnacles in the river at Sierra Leone, where the ship lay for some [535] time. They stated that the quality of copper might always be kuown by its appearance and malleability; and that if there had been any defect in that sold to the Plaintiff, his shipwright must have discovered it while in the act of sheathing the vessel. The Chief Justice left it to the jury to determine whether the decay in the copper was occasioned hy intrinsic defect or external accident; and if it arose from intrinsic defect, whether such defect were occasioned in the process of manufacture. The jury found that the decay was occasioned by some intrinsic defect in the quality of the copper; but that there was no satisfactory evidence to shew what was the cause of that defect. A verdict was thereupon entered for the Plaintiff, subject to an enquiry by an arbitrator as to the amount of damages. Lndlow Serjt. obtained a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, on IBINO. 636. JONE8 V. BRIGHT 1169 the ground, that without an express warranty, or proof of fraud, the Defendants were not responsible for the quality of the article they sold. Wilde and Russell Serjts. shewed cause. When an article is sold for a particular purpose, a warranty is implied that it is fit for that purpose. The Defendant's copper was sold for the purpose of sheathing a ship; if not adapted to that purpose, it was of no use to the Plaintiff: he would only have purchased it, therefore, on the supposition that the Defendants undertook it should have the requisite qualities. The rule, caveat emptor, applies only where articles are bought in the way of merchandize, and not for any specific use. But good policy requires that the seller should be responsible where he sells an article for a specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry Kendall & Sons (A Firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd and Others
...be to ensure that the seller only sells something that is reasonably fit for the purpose. It was well established at common law (see James v. Bright 5 Bing 533) and it would appear to be commonsense that if a man sells something for a particular purpose he undertakes that it will be fit for......
-
Parsons (H.) (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Company Ltd
...(1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 181. Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] 1 K.B. 141, C.A. Harmer v. Cornelius (1858) 5 C.B.N.S. 236. Jones v. Bright (1829) 5 Bing. 533. Monarch Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] A.C. 196; [1949] 1 All E.R. 1, H.L.(Sc.). Polemis and Furness, Withy ......
-
Aswan Engineering Establishment Company (M/S) v Lupdine Ltd
...between them. The purchaser cannot be supposed to buy goods to lay them on a dunghill". 17Among the nineteenth century milestones were Jones v. Bright 5 Bingham 533, Jones v. Just LR 3 Q.B. 197, Drummond v. Van Ingen 12 App. Cas. 284 and Jones v. Padgett (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 650. In Jones v. ......
-
Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
...Your Lordships need not consider any question of an opportunity to inspect, because, as Park J. in effect recognised much later in Jones v. Bright 5 Bing 533 at page 548, in the case of latent defects (with which alone your Lordships are concerned) there cannot be an opportunity to 30There......
-
Defects
...at [7], per Byrne J; Cembrit Blunn Ltd v Apex Rooing Services LLP [2007] EWhC 111 (Ch) at [124], per Kitchin J. See also Jones v Bright (1829) 5 Bing 533 [130 Er 1167], where a merchant was found to have breached an implied warranty of itness for purpose regarding the sale of copper sheathi......
-
The circular economy and the implied terms of contract in English sales law
...Kendall and Sonsv WilliamLillico and Sons Ltd. (1969), “2 A.C. 31”.Jewson v Boyhan (2004),“1 Lloyd’s rep. 505”.Jones v Bright (1829),“5 Bing 533”.KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaftfür Mineraloele mbH and Co v Petroplus Marketing AG (The MerciniLady) (2010), “EWCACiv 1145”.Kopnina, H. and Shor......