A offers to sell a cannon to B. A knows that the cannon has a defect in it and puts a metal plug to conceal the defect. B accepts the cannon without examining it. The cannon bursts before it is paid for. Is B liable to pay the price ?
The facts of the given problem are similar to those of Horsefall v. Thomas, in which case it was held that a fraud that actually does not deceive is not fraud. The court held that there was no fraud because B would have bought it even if no deceptive plug had been put. He was in fact not deceived by it since he did not even care to examine the cannon. The decision seems to be based upon the feeling that law shall not protect those who are negligent about their interests.
The facts of the given problem are similar to those of Horsefall v. Thomas, in which case it was held that a fraud that actually does not deceive is not fraud. The court held that there was no fraud because B would have bought it even if no deceptive plug had been put. He was in fact not deceived by it since he did not even care to examine the cannon. The decision seems to be based upon the feeling that law shall not protect those who are negligent about their interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment